The Assembly met at 10.30 am (the Initial Presiding Officer (The Lord Alderdice of Knock) in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Presiding Officer’s Business

Lord Alderdice: At the end of the last sitting of the Assembly some Members raised with me difficulties regarding the audibility of other Members who were speaking in the Chamber. The problems identified have been examined and, where possible, have been addressed. In particular, I draw the attention of Members to the suspended microphones in the Chamber. I have had these lowered in an attempt to ensure greater amplification. I trust that they are now not so low as to cause the taller Members of the Assembly any inconvenience. If Members still experience difficulties in hearing other Members’ speeches they should contact the Keeper of the House.
There has been some uncertainty over the status of papers placed in the Library. I have looked at this matter, and to clarify things I make the following ruling. When papers are placed in the Library, that act will make them public documents. The Library will not be responsible for making the papers available; the papers, along with other material, will, as soon as possible, be placed on the Assembly’s website and thus will be widely available. They are, of course, always available to Members, who should feel free to publish them.
Papers to be put in the Library but which are not for public dissemination will be termed "papers deposited in the Library". Such papers will be available to Members but should not be made more widely available.
At the previous sitting Mr P Robinson asked me to reflect further on the meaning and intention of Initial Standing Order 2(1), suggesting that, in ordering the Doors to be fastened, I was going beyond what the Initial Standing Orders entitled the Initial Presiding Officer to do. I agreed to re-examine the matter and to advise the Assembly if I had made a judgement that went beyond what was appropriate. I have made it clear on many occasions that the Initial Standing Orders are inadequate for conducting the Assembly’s business and that other matters should be taken into account — for instance, the draft Standing Orders, as discussed by the Committee on Standing Orders, and Erskine May.
I have reconsidered the matter raised by MrPRobinson in some detail, and I have taken advice from my legal counsel. I have concluded that I must stand by my earlier ruling on the issue. I do not think that anyone could seriously challenge the assertion that the Initial Presiding Officer is under a duty to act fairly with all Members and should not discriminate in favour of some to the disadvantage of others. If I were not to proceed in the way that I have ruled, my actions could be challenged by way of judicial review.
If the unfair advantage that I have mentioned is to be avoided, it will be necessary to ensure that all Members are allowed the same time in which to enter, physically, the place where they are entitled to vote. How this is achieved is clearly a matter of procedure upon which, by virtue of Initial Standing Order 2(1), my ruling shall be final.
The adopted procedure of closing the Chamber Doors at the expiration of three minutes after a general announcement is a fair and reasonable one, particularly bearing in mind that any other procedure for achieving this would be difficult to police. Those Members who are excluded because they arrive late will not have been treated any less favourably than any other Member. Until the Doors are opened at the conclusion of a vote, Members who have been denied access to the Chamber will, of course, be able to observe, although not participate, from the Gallery.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am grateful for this, but it does not go to the heart of the matter that I sought to have addressed. What I asked was whether the Initial Standing Order permitted you to make an interpretation, no matter how liberal that existing Standing Order was, or whether it drew a line at allowing you to bring in or make new Standing Orders. Where is the line between interpreting an existing Standing Order and making a ruling which amounts to a new Standing Order?

Lord Alderdice: My view is that no Presiding Officer should be in a position arbitrarily to construct Standing Orders. It is not just appropriate to ensure that whatever developments of procedure are necessary for the implementation of Standing Orders are carried through, but a binding duty. I do not think it is appropriate for completely new and essentially arbitrary Standing Orders to be created, and I do not believe that my decision did that.

Mr Duncan Dalton: Would the Presiding Officer explain to the House why a different official is sitting next to him and why the Clerk, whom one would expect to be present, is not here today?

Lord Alderdice: Members know that certain questions of procedure were raised with me by the First Minister (Designate) at the last sitting. I said to him that I would explore the matter and any other matters that were drawn to my attention in that context which involved discussions between Mr McCartney and the Deputy Clerk. No further material was raised with me in that regard. Since that time, certain other matters —

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. This matter was not raised as a point of order, and I therefore feel able to intervene on a point of order.
We are dealing with personnel matters relating to a civil servant, and I do not believe that that is fair of us. It would be appropriate for you to refer it to the party Whip, who can make his Colleagues aware of the position.

Lord Alderdice: I have no wish to proceed further with this matter now unless the House so wishes.

Assembly: Presiding Officer

Mr Cedric Wilson: When I first considered placing this motion before the Assembly, it was reasonable for me to expect that it would have the support of all parties. However, over the past few days it has become clear to me that the prospect of all-party support for the motion has disappeared. Indeed, I have received reasonably sound information to suggest that the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party intend to oppose it.
I feel that I have a duty to make clear the reasons for these parties’ opposition to the motion to everyone in the Chamber, to those in the Galleries, and to the wider public. It gives an indication of the shape of things to come. We will have in the Assembly what in the business world would be known as a cartel. Those who have been preaching the gospel of inclusivity and responsibility sharing are about to carve up between them all the positions of responsibility in the Assembly. These jobs for the boys will be shared between the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP.

Lord Alderdice: Is the Member preparing to move the motion? His remarks would be appropriate if he were intending to do that, but I cannot accept them if he intends to withdraw the motion.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I will come to the crux of the matter very soon.

Lord Alderdice: For various reasons, I need to be clear as to whether you intend to move the motion.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I have set out some of the difficulties that I have encountered in relation to this matter. Bearing in mind the excellent service that you have given to the Assembly during your probationary period as Presiding Officer, a fact that is acknowledged by all parties, it is with some sadness that I inform you and formally advise the House that I intend not to move the motion standing in my name. I have spoken to your assistants about the meeting. However, my action is on the basis that everyone must understand the likely shape that the Assembly will take in the future.

Lord Alderdice: I have been more than generous with the Member. The words "Not moved" would have been sufficient.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. The Member for Strangford has said that he will not be moving the motion. However, the Order Paper shows that this is part of the business for today. I could, of course, after making some remarks, decide to move the motion myself. That would be in accordance with the practice of the House. MrWilson has drawn attention to what is a fairly sleazy arrangement between the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists.

John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am on a point of order, and we cannot have a second one.

Lord Alderdice: Mr Robinson is making a point of order relating to procedure. He is taking his time in explaining it, but he should be allowed to complete his remarks. I cannot accept points of order on a point of order.

Mr Peter Robinson: The sleazy arrangement to which I referred makes it imperative that we have a discussion on this matter, particularly as the Chair is supposed to be politically neutral. It is not supposed to be part of a carve-up between parties, creating a situation in which the Chair would be answerable to a particular party and would have to do its bidding.

Lord Alderdice: These are certainly interesting questions, but it remains to be seen whether they constitute a point of order. The motion has not been moved and is therefore not the property of the House. It is not a case of it being withdrawn or not withdrawn, proceeded with or otherwise. It is clear that it has not been moved and we must proceed to the next business.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I said that it was my intention to withdraw the motion, but I have not actually reached that point.

Lord Alderdice: I admire your ingenuity, but as it is clearly your intention not to move the motion, it is inappropriate to permit speeches on the issue. That is my ruling.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Further to my point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. For the information of the House, the SDLP’s nominee will be Mr Mark Durkan. Members heard it here first .

Lord Alderdice: Order. In my experience a day is a long time in politics and in proposals for the Presiding Officer.

Mr Eddie McGrady: The Members remarks show how ill-informed he is.

Lord Alderdice: Is that a point of order?

Report of First Minister (Designate) and Deputy

Determination of Ministerial Offices

Lord Alderdice: At the most recent meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, there was discussion of a proposal, by leave of the Assembly, to alter the speaking times set out in Initial Standing Order 8(5).
Following that discussion, it was agreed that the Assembly should judge the matter at the sitting. The proposition was that speaking times would be amended for the duration of the debate so that proposers of the motion would have 30 minutes, instead of 20 minutes, divided between proposers if they wished; that all parties in the first round of speaking would have 20 minutes, rather than 10; that other Members would have 10 minutes; that the four largest parties would have 20 minutes for the winding-up speech; and that the proposers of the motion would have 20 minutes for the winding-up speech, divided as they wished, instead of the current 15 minutes.
Do we have the leave of the Assembly for those proposals?

Several Members: No.

Lord Alderdice: Leave has not been given.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I note that those who are least willing to have fuller debate are the Ulster Unionist Members. Clearly they are concerned that their argument could not sustain scrutiny. They want to deny Members the opportunity to speak more fully on the issues, and that shows how weak their arguments are and demonstrates that they are running scared of debate.
Perhaps I could put another proposal under Standing Order 8(5) which will give those Members a chance to reflect on their immaturity and to recognise that this is a democratic institution, which is supposed to allow free and open debate. They should not be afraid of that, although one can understand why they might be. I suggest that the proposer, or proposers, share 30 minutes between them, and that all Front-Bench spokespersons have 20 minutes each, but that the 20 minutes is not accorded to the Member who is winding-up, nor is any extension of time given to the person who makes the winding-up speech for the proposer.

Lord Alderdice: Perhaps I could clarify the matter. As I understand it, the proposition is that the joint proposers would have 30 minutes each — that would be up to 60 minutes for the proposition; there would be 20 minutes for all parties in the first round; 10 minutes for other Members; and no additional time for the winding-up speeches for the larger parties. I am not clear, however, as to whether there was a proposition to extend the normal 15 minutes.

Several Members: No.

Lord Alderdice: There has been no proposal for that. Are Members clear about the proposal? Do I have the leave of the Assembly to accept it?

Several Members: No.

Lord Alderdice: There does not appear to be leave. I sense that the question is not on the format of an extension to speeches but on the proposition that speeches be extended.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. We had been informed by you that we could expect to have this report last Thursday. There has been a consistent habit on the parts of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to delay the publication of their reports beyond the time when they are scheduled to be released. Clearly they have some internal difficulties. However, those internal difficulties should not be in breach of arrangements that are made with business managers of this House. Some of my colleagues did not receive this report until this morning because of the late publication. The First Minister (Designate) would do better to listen than to point his finger around and look at the Galleries of the House. It is his behaviour that we are referring to at the present time.
Is it in order for the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to give indications to your office of the release times of reports and consistently fail to meet those releasetimes, therefore denying Members the opportunity to read the report before it is debated in this Chamber?

Lord Alderdice: I have to say that I find it a difficulty when I am passed information about how things will be, and I convey that in good faith to those who request it, and find that it appears the information I have given is incorrect. I apologise to the House that I find myself being the purveyor of inaccurate descriptions of how things will be, but I have found it difficult to do otherwise. I particularly regret that this is something that you have had to take from me on more than one occasion.

Rt Hon David Trimble: On a point of order, MrPresidingOfficer. I will try to deal with the substance of that issue — which was not, I think, a point of order — later. I was gesturing with my fingers because the clocks appear to be malfunctioning. It has since been suggested to me that the reason for that might be that they are not trying to time the points of order. I wonder if that is correct.

Lord Alderdice: I am not sure what the question is about the time. The time is currently 10.52 and 21 seconds.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The seconds are malfunctioning.

Lord Alderdice: There seems to be a problem at times with the seconds counter, but the minutes and hours are currently correct. Although they may seem long as the time goes on, I suspect that they are reasonably correct.

Mr Sam Foster: With regard to Mr Robinson’s statement about the denial of freedom of speech, he has forgotten in his sanctimonious way about the denial of freedom of speech at Fivemiletown a couple of weeks ago.

Lord Alderdice: Members must understand that, although it may be tempting, it is not in order for other Members to reply to points of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The delay in receiving this report, Sir, inconvenienced those who had called meetings on Thursday in light of the promise made by you that this document would be available at half past four on Thursday. I contacted the First Minister (Designate)’s office, the Clerk’s office and your own office, and I was told by MrTrimble’s office that there was both political difficulty and logistical difficulty with this report. Those difficulties should have been solved by those concerned so that those of us who wanted to read this report and table amendments would have opportunity and time to do so.
In fact the report had to be collected and brought down to my home. However, that document is different to the one which is now printed. How can we do the business of this House when we are not given the proper document or given three clear days to read that document and table amendments? Surely this matter should not be re-occurring. It should be put right once and for all.

Lord Alderdice: You have raised two issues, Dr Paisley, and the first of these is the question of the delivery of material to Members. In fairness to the staff of the Assembly, I must point out that it is not their responsibility to deliver material which emanates from Assembly business, although they do their best to oblige us.
A further substantial point of order relates to the question of amendments, and I must draw this to the attention of those who are considering our Standing Orders. Where it is the case that material arrives late and the Standing Order — unlike Standing Orders in other places — requires amendments to be put down one hour before the commencement of the sitting, there is no doubt that that creates certain difficulties which would not be encountered in other places where manuscript amendments can be put down.
I have to remain with, and ensure compliance with, the Standing Orders that we currently have. As MrRobinson pointed out, I am not at liberty to either disregard them or make up Standing Orders of my own. I do, however, accept that there is a dilemma with matters arriving late and the Standing Orders, which insist that amendments must be put down at least one hour before the commencement of the sitting.

Mr Peter Weir: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. With regard to the two motions arising out of the report, perhaps you would clarify whether you intend to have a separate debate on business motion number 5, or whether you intend to take the two votes together?

Lord Alderdice: Perhaps I can explain to Members how I propose to conduct the business. There are two motions: the motion on the report, and a business motion which is for the purpose of a determination and refers to matters entirely contained within the report. On the Marshalled list of amendments, there are also two amendments — one amendment to the first motion and an amendment to the business motion.
Since it is clear that all matters referred to in the business motion are also referred to in the report, which is the subject of the first motion, it seems reasonable that the House should proceed by way of a single debate, within which would be contained the proposal of the first motion and any amendments.
When it comes to the vote, the amendment to the first motion, if moved, will be taken first. Depending upon the result of that, the substantive motion will then be taken. The amendment to the business motion will then be tabled but, since it will have been spoken to in the previous debate, will not be the subject of further discussion. The business motion will then be taken formally, full debate having been possible on all of the matters.
I wish to make it clear that I will not rule that a matter is not relevant to the first motion because it refers to the second. It seems to me they are all one matter. The Assembly will then proceed to four votes if the amendments are moved and the motions also moved at that point.
Is there any objection to our proceeding on that basis?
There being no dissent, we have the leave of the House.
Motion made:
This Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), and approves the proposals in relation to establishing the consultative Civic Forum (as recorded in section 5 of that report). — [The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate)]
The following amendment to that motion stood on the Marshalled List in the name of Rev Dr Ian Paisley: 
", having noted the contents of the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), requires them to take back the report and reconsider it with a view to ensuring that —
it contains a specific requirement that any North/South body is accountable to the Assembly and does not perform any executive role;
the Civic Forum is properly appointed in order to ensure a balance of community interests and is merely consultative and not publicly deliberative; and
unnatural departmental divisions are corrected."
The following motion stood on the Order Paper in the names of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate):
This Assembly approves the determination by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) of the number of ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers and the functions which would be exercisable by the holder of each such office after the appointed day (as recorded in Annex 2 of their report to the Assembly).
The following amendment to that motion stood on the Marshalled List in the name of Mr P Robinson:
"declines to approve the determination by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) of the number of ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers and the functions which would be exercisable by the holder of each such office after the appointed day (as recorded in Annex 2 of their report to the Assembly) before Sinn Féin Members are excluded from holding office as Ministers or the IRA has decommissioned its illegal weaponry and dismantles its terror machine."

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I wish to mention two matters both of which relate to the report. It is essential, in a debate as important as the one on which we are about to embark, that Members have all of the necessary material in advance.
This is not a mere statement made by a Minister in the House; rather it is a report which deals with very major issues — indeed, probably the most major issue that the Assembly can deliberate upon. It is therefore absolutely imperative that every Member should be informed before a debate commences. At least four Members of my party did not receive the report upon which this debate is to be conducted until they arrived in the House this morning.
If, however, they had purchased the ‘Irish News’ on Saturday they could have read the full report. I should be interested to hear your opinion, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, of the standing of such a document. Is it public property as soon as the printers have done their work, is it available to just one newspaper or to all newspapers, or should it be available to any before it is available to Members of this House?
The second issue has to do with the Order Paper. Because of the late delivery of the report, amendments could not be tabled before this morning, so there is no edge to my comments in relation to the staff of the House. There is a printing error in the first amendment. The last line says "unnatural departmental divisions are correct". "Correct" should be "corrected" — the House should note the proper terminology — and that mistake is the fault of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) who did not release the report in time.

Lord Alderdice: I remind Members about what has just been said about the correction to the first amendment on the marshalled list: the last word in amendment 1 should be "corrected" instead of "correct".
Time was a difficulty with this, and I appreciate Mr Robinson’s comments about the staff who have striven to address matters as best they can. With regard to the previous point that was raised, the question of items being put in the public domain, it has always been a convention at Westminster, at least until recent times, that material did not make its way into the public domain in advance of its being made available to Parliament.
It has been made clear at meetings of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer (CAPO) that it would be regarded as a discourtesy if such were to happen here. However, there is nothing in Standing Orders that allows me to make a ruling on this. I can simply point out how Members feel about it, but the Executive (Designate) has to act as it wishes to. Members may feel that this is a discourtesy, but there is nothing in Standing Orders which allows me to rule on it one way or another. This is a matter which Members may wish to raise in other ways.

Mr William Hay: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. As one of the Members who have not yet received a copy of the report through the post, I would like to support the Member for East Belfast, MrRobinson. I only received a copy when I arrived here this morning. The point needs to be made clearly: this is an important report, and it is rather sad that the Ulster Unionist Party is determined to stifle debate on this important issue.

Lord Alderdice: I understand the feelings of Members who did not receive copies of the report, but I cannot take it further as a point of order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is my pleasure to introduce the motions on the report that we have produced.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I note that the report contains, as far as I can understand — [Interruption]
The Member must be a mind reader, apart from anything else, because he does not know what I am about to raise.
I want clarification, as we are supposed to vote on and adopt the report, specifically on annex2 where we have the determination by the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate) on the 10 ministerial offices and the Departments. I am uncertain as to why annex1a is not also included. We are being asked to adopt the report, which contains the number of Ministries and the definition of a Ministry but does not contain their actual functions. Neither is there any detailed reference to the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), albeit, as I see it, it would take an Assembly of its own to organise that.
Are we being asked to adopt what is contained in annex 2 and in annex 1 in relation to the 10Departments? Are we also being asked to adopt what is said about the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), which are both excluded from annex 2? This is very important.

Lord Alderdice: I have sought advice on this matter at a number of levels. It is not appropriate for me, in any fashion, to look at the question of the content of the advice — that is not a matter for me at all. It is only for me to try to make proper judgements about the legal competence. As things currently stand, I have been assured that by the time the matter becomes extant, all the necessary matters will have been addressed by way of legislation. It will all have been addressed by then. I cannot do other than to accept that assurance, and with that assurance, as far as I can see, the proposition is a competent one.

Mr Alex Maskey: Further to that point, aChathaoirligh. You are saying you have been assured, and I have no doubt that you have been, but, for the record, I would like to know by whom. Will the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) make specific reference to this in their contributions?

Lord Alderdice: It will obviously be up to the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) to refer to the matters if they choose to do so. The advice that I sought was legal advice and the advice of those whose responsibility it would be to ensure that the legislation is passed. That would not be in this place, but in another place. The advice I have received is that all the necessary legislation will have been passed by the date required.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, are you saying that we will have to wait until the two Ministers concerned have a mind to give us this information? This information should have been in the document, rather than your saying that you have been given an assurance that we will get it.

Lord Alderdice: Let me make it clear that it is not for me to do anything other than try to ensure that a motion that comes before the House is a legally competent one. It would be quite inappropriate for me to even explore other matters. I have made explorations in order to try to ensure that the matters will be dealt with competently, and I have been assured that that is the case. As regards the content and all the other matters, Dr Paisley must refer his questions to people other than myself. They are not points of order in that regard.

Mr Alex Maskey: My interpretation of this is that the legislation will not apply to shadow Ministers, so if a shadow Executive is established, which of those designated functions will the shadow Ministers be responsible for?

Lord Alderdice: I hope I am not straying outside what is appropriate, but I draw to Members’ attention the fact that shadow Ministers do not have legal authority and responsibility for any Departments. They are there to shadow, to learn, to apprentice themselves into the position.
It is obviously complex given that there are currently six Departments, and this is a proposition for rather more than that, but they do not have responsibilities according to the legislation.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The report was drawn up on the basis of legal advice that we received that the content of annex 2 satisfied the requirements of the legislation and the Standing Orders. We also endeavoured to ensure that all relevant information was contained in the other annexes. Annex 1a gives a more detailed description of the functions of the Departments because it encompasses the functions that we missed in the 18December statement. The distribution of functions contained in that statement is also given, for ease of reference, so people comparing 1a and 1b will be able to see what the missing functions were and how they have been allocated.
We wanted to and had hoped to make this report available to people much earlier. Part of the reason for the delay was the detail that we had to determine and settle with regard to the Civic Forum. That is one of the important new matters in this report compared to others. Members will see that the motion asks them specifically to approve the proposals in relation to establishing a consultative Civic Forum. That means that that approval will turn this part of the report on the Civic Forum into the basic law of the Civic Forum, and, consequently, it was necessary to include material on the Civic Forum in considerable detail so that we can be clearly agreed on it.
It was not adequate at that stage to sketch general outline provisions on the Civic Forum. If we had just indicated it in outline, we would not be bringing forward the detail until after devolution day. Consequently, we would be delaying the point at which the Civic Forum would come into existence. In order to be able to bring the Civic Forum into existence very soon after D-Day, it was necessary to get details settled here, and we have gone as far as we possibly could — indeed, some matters were not resolved until Friday morning.
I am sorry to say that another reason for the delay is that, in making these changes to Departments, we are encountering a certain amount of turf war between Departments. We are also encountering a reluctance on the part of some officials to realise that things are changing. I do not want to go into detail on that. People are resisting changes. I know that it is difficult for some senior civil servants, after 25 years of direct rule, to accept that elected Members are gaining authority and making decisions which officials have to accept and implement. The rearguard action that is being fought by some Departments against the changes that were agreed on 18December is most regrettable. I hope that the Departments responsible will accept the decisions that we as elected representatives have taken in this Chamber and will implement them loyally. I hope I will not have to refer to this matter again.
When MrMaskey held up his report his thumb was on the typographical error in annex 2, and I thought that he was about to refer to it. The reference to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Development should read the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. There is at least one other typographical error in the body of the report, but for brevity’s sake I will not get into the substance of that.
I have said that the new material relates essentially to the British-Irish Council and the Civic Forum. I will not go through this in detail, but would point out that the key concept is to encourage the creation of consortiums in various sectors which will then nominate individuals. The Deputy First Minister and I were anxious to avoid a situation where we were directly responsible for all nominees. We will accept responsibility for some, but we will have that residual category to ensure a proper balance. The organisations that are to be involved in this Civic Forum have to accept responsibility for their nominations. We will accept responsibility for oversight and to ensure that fair and open procedures are adopted and followed, but nominations must come from them.
The important step in this debate is the determination on Departments. That is the next step in a series of steps leading to the transfer of power to this body. That is the real question that we have to deal with, and we will have to deal with it in the run-up to the target date for that transfer of 10March.
Essentially, we are today reviewing progress and making a formal determination. The real question is whether we manage in the run-up to 10March to see that everything is done that should be done. Members are aware of my party’s stance. We intend to do everything that we need to do and that we can do regarding that transfer. But there are other things that should be done by other people, and they include matters that some people have not yet addressed. They will have to do these things.
I do not wish to labour the point — the Irish Prime Minister said everything that was necessary to be said on this matter yesterday morning. It was published, and, while the pill was sugared slightly for some people in the course of the day, they should not think that they can evade the issue. It cannot be evaded. It is a matter not just for Sinn Féin but for other paramilitary organisations too. They must be under no illusion as to what is required by the agreement for progress. We hope that in the run-up to 10March, they can achieve what is necessary and can carry out their obligations.
We want to see this body progressing in an inclusive fashion. That is our primary objective. That can happen only if people carry out their obligations and cease clinging to this interpretation of the agreement which the Taoiseach rightly described as unreasonable, unfair and illogical.
It is time for people to do what they have to do, and that must be done in the run up to 10March. The real question is what will happen in that period when we will be trying to juggle the necessary provisions for the devolution Order, which will have to start at Westminster, and the proceedings that we will have to adopt in the House in March. This is merely a staging post on the route to that destination, and I hope that we reach it with all the necessary steps having been taken.
Some amendments have been tabled, and I want to touch on them briefly. I preferred the original drafting of amendment No. 1 rather than the corrected drafting that was produced by MrPRobinson. The final words of the original draft —
"departmental divisions are correct" —
are correct. They may be described as unnatural, but they are also correct. The DUP wants to see them changed, but without showing how that should be done. That is not an amendment that we can accept. Neither can we accept amendment No. 1 to the determination because to decline to approve the determination merely stops the process and does not achieve anything.
What must happen and what is important is that before the appointed day and the transfer of functions to the Executive, and, indeed, before the formation of the Executive, we must see a credible beginning of a process of decommissioning. As the Ulster Unionist Party reiterated at its executive meeting on Saturday, it will stick to that requirement, and that will be the view of all members of our party. We are united on that. Consequently, as we are on a staging post towards achieving —

Mr Martin McGuinness: Will the Member give way?

Rt Hon David Trimble: No, I am sorry. Having refused to give way to one Member, I must be equal and even-handed in my approach and treat all Members equally on this matter. This is a staging post towards the achievement of that, and I look forward to the day when power can be transferred to the Assembly; when there are not shadow Ministers, but real Ministers; and when the Assembly can carry out all that we have worked for over recent years. I look forward to that time, and I hope that we will do that in the good spirit that is beginning to develop within all sections in the Chamber. That must be the earnest wish of us all.

Mr Seamus Mallon: May I, like the First Minister (Designate), apologise for the delay in the report reaching Members. There were many difficulties, not the least of which was the complexity of some of the new, creative and imaginative arrangements, and that delayed us. Yes, there were difficulties in relation to the text. There will always be difficulties in this type of arrangement, and I would have preferred the report to be with Members sooner.
The difficulties are there because of the very nature of the arrangements. I would not like it to be thought that that was the fault of the Civil Service or any civil servants. I thank them and the Members who took part in the round-table and bilateral arrangements for their input on many of the issues, not least the Civic Forum.
Today is a crucial one in the political process that we have embarked upon. It is the beginning of the end of the initial section of this part of our new politics. From now on there will be no more time or space for delay or for prevarication. We have the target dates, and we will know what we have to do when this motion is passed, as it will be. It defines not just the substance but the time in which we all have either to implement both the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, or resile from it.
This should not be an acrimonious debate; rather it should be serious and constructive. We should listen seriously to what others have to say, and not just listen, but understand what they have to say and why they are saying it. We have to generate the amount of trust which is going to be required to make a quadripartite-coalition type of administration work. That has been difficult, even on the limited basis so far, and it is going to be difficult in future. If we can have as serious a debate as possible without acrimony, the better for all of us.
We should not underestimate the amount of work that has gone into this report. It has become difficult, and it will become more difficult as the complexities of the arrangement show themselves. The reality is that we have been able to overcome some difficulties — the difficulties of timing, the difficulties of understanding the agreement and the difficulties of party positions. All of those difficulties have been overcome on this, and that against the background of the continuing question of decommissioning.
I know that it should not overshadow this debate, but we must rise above the difficulties that we face. We have to sustain the vision that carried the negotiating and the adoption of this agreement through. We have to sustain the potential for the future that we have in this room and in this political process.
On the issue of decommissioning I want to make a few points that sometimes are lost. Decommissioning will be resolved by voluntary act or not at all. Those are the exact words of Sir Patrick Mayhew in his last speech in the House of Commons — the Patrick Mayhew who devised, created or stumbled into the Washington preconditions which laboured this problem for so long.
If we accept that it will be by the voluntary decision of the groupings involved or not at all, then we have to face that fact. If this is not the case, and I am wrong in this, by what other way is it going to be achieved? What else has not been tried? What else could be tried? By what other way can it be achieved? That is the first question that we all have to look at.
The second crucial point is that we forget that it is only in the context of this agreement that decommissioning will happen. Outside of this agreement there will be no decommissioning. I say this sincerely to people who have strong views about it: damage this agreement and we damage the prospect of achieving decommissioning. Lose this agreement and we lose any prospect of decommissioning. That is a harsh reality for all of us, but it is another of the fundamental points that should underline our thinking.
The third point is that decommissioning is a requirement of the agreement. The very structures of the institutions, the inclusivity, the shape of the sections on prisoner releases, law reform, human rights, equality and normalisation were all shaped for a context in which decommissioning would take place and violence and the threat of violence had ended. It follows then that it is an inexorable requirement of the agreement that we fulfil the Mitchell principles, and they were arrived at even before the negotiations started. They said that there would be some decommissioning — not before, not after, but during the negotiations. Negotiations have ended — they took two years. We are almost a year into the agreement, and I believe that the words of the Mitchell Report are as applicable now as they were then.
The fourth very important point is that decommissioning is not a precondition within the agreement. There is no legal or technical factor to suggest that it is, and to portray it as such overburdens the debate, as it probably does the prospect of obtaining decommissioning.
The fifth very important point — and I say this from some experience — is that without a resolution of the decommissioning issue there will not be sufficient trust in the political process to make it work effectively and creatively within the institutions which we are going to adopt today.
Trust is a rare thing among political parties. It has to be nurtured and encouraged, and that is difficult. We will never get absolute trust between any of the parties here or among them. What we can aim for is sufficient trust to make that which we have already agreed in the Good Friday Agreement and in the institutions work. However, unless this issue is resolved, that trust is not going to be there to make this agreement work in the creative, imaginative and determined way that it should.
It follows that the problems that are faced by the Ulster Unionist Party and SinnFéin must be looked at honestly, and there are problems. I say, especially to those on the Unionist Benches today who have strong feelings and who might be tempted to vote against this motion because of this issue, that, outside of the agreement, there will be no context in which decommissioning can be achieved. I ask them to seriously consider that and weigh it against the agreement’s potential to achieve lasting peace and to make that lasting peace part of the political process, not as a word, but as the underlying thesis.
I recognise SinnFéin’s difficulties on this matter, and I take this opportunity to put on record my acknowledgement of the courage with which many in that party have challenged those in the wider Republican organisation on this issue. I say very clearly to them that, like all of us, we should have only one resolve today: to stand by this agreement. We stand by both the letter of the agreement and the spirit of the agreement. If we are all resolved in terms of this debate to stand by this agreement, then we can build sufficient trust to make what we have decided operative.
I know there will be a long and detailed debate on the various parts of the report and I thank you, MrInitial Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to respond in detail to some of those. However, there is one message today and it is this. We can either lay the basis today for resolving these issues and moving forward, or we can ensure that that which we have already agreed, and staked so much on, is put in jeopardy. Surely there is only one way to go, and that is the way forward on the basis of an agreement that we all resolved to stand by. There is no other way.

Lord Alderdice: I call Dr Paisley to introduce the first amendment.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: As has been mentioned before, the last sentence of the amendment should read "unnatural departmental divisions are corrected."
I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out from "Assembly" and add
", having noted the contents of the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), requires them to take back the report and reconsider it with a view to ensuring that —
it contains a specific requirement that any North/South body is accountable to the Assembly and does not perform any executive role;
the Civic Forum is properly appointed in order to ensure a balance of community interests and is merely consultative and not publicly deliberative; and
unnatural departmental divisions are corrected."
It is very interesting to note that there is no mention whatsoever of decommissioning in the report. The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) spent most of their time commenting on decommissioning, but nothing is said about it in this paper. It is not referred to because nothing is really going to be done about it. The object of this debate is to see that Ulster Unionist Party Members vote in the right way on this report. In other words, the Members must now endorse the cheque that they voted for at the last sitting.
But interesting things are happening. MrAhern has said
"decommissioning in one form or another has to happen. It is not compatible with being a part of a government, and part of an executive if there is not at least a commencement of decommissioning. That would apply in the North and in the South."
This is what MrAhern said that we need to achieve. But then he was asked if he was really saying that, regardless of what it says in the agreement, the practical policies are that there can be no executive without a start to decommissioning. His answer was "Yes", but that was in the morning. Before the sun had set he had evidently changed his mind.
His change of mind came because there are guns on the table, under the table and outside the door of these negotiations. Mr Hume said that there would be no guns — but the guns are there, and MrAhern had to do a U-turn. MrAhern thought he would help MrTrimble get reticent Ulster Unionists to vote for the report, he gave them the sop that he was with them in their attempt to keep Sinn Féin out of the Executive until such times as decommissioning had, at least, started.
But no such thing is in the mind of the Taoiseach. In fact, the Southern Ireland Government have violated every agreement that they have entered into with the UnitedKingdom, and they are seeking to violate this agreement with their usual skulduggery and deception.
As far back as September 1997 the Ulster Unionists and my party issued a statement, jointly signed by MrTrimble and myself, which said
"The two parties are totally agreed that the principle of consent which is the right of the people of Northern Ireland alone to determine their own future is a fundamental governing principle which must apply in all circumstances. This principle must be accepted by the Government and all parties.
Our two parties are also agreed that the issue of the decommissioning, i.e. the handing over of illegal terrorist weaponry, must be resolved to their satisfaction before there could be substantive political negotiations.
Recognising the need for greater Unionist unity of approach at this critical time, the parties have agreed to meet again shortly."
In a matter of weeks, Mr Trimble had made a U-turn. When Sinn Féin was brought in there was no decommissioning, and my party, as it said it would in its election manifesto, immediately withdrew from the talks. It is a bit late in the day for the Official Unionists to attempt to build a barricade now. The flood waters are flowing, and they are not flowing their way.
This attempt to tell us that there will be no executive unless Sinn Féin is a member is wrong, and it will be proved to be wrong. The two Governments and world opinion will be stronger than the determination of MrTrimble. How strong will these Members be who went to the electorate and gave assurances, as my party did, that they would not sit down with Sinn Féin in an Executive?
It is amazing that this most important debate is being gagged by the votes of the Official Unionist Party. In no other Assembly would the party leaders be given only 10 minutes to speak to a motion of this kind. Why have we not had a full-scale debate with proper timings? We did not even get the documents.

Mr Seamus Mallon: Will the Member give way?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: No, for I have only 10 minutes, after which the Deputy First Minister (Designate) will be shouting me down.
Pick up the document and consider the Civic Forum — an amazing body. The largest industry in Northern Ireland is agriculture and fisheries — and agriculture is major in comparison with the fisheries side — yet it is only getting three voices.
I have heard many Members on the Unionist Benches speaking about the victims and how their voices must be heard. Yet they are only getting two voices — two voices. Let us consider the victims of all the violence in this Province. Let us march them past the city hall and measure the number of hours it takes for the multitude of victims to pass by a given point and then think as well of the number who have been murdered. But the victims and their loved ones will have two voices to tell of their plight — probably one from the Nationalist side and one from the Unionist side. There is no distinction made today between innocent victims and others; they tell us that victims are all the same.
However, the voluntary/community bodies, which are highly rated by the Official Unionist Party, will get 18 voices — 18 voices. The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) are to reserve for themselves not two places but six. They will have more voices than the victims or the agricultural interests, yet we are being told that we must rush through this determination with a short debate.
What will be the end of this matter? The Deputy First Minister (Designate) has told us that the only way ahead is to give in to the lawless, to the people with the Semtex and the guns that have been used to commit these murders. I will never crawl before these people.

Mr Peter Robinson: I listened with great care to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). I prefer to listen to people who believe what they are saying, and that is certainly true of the Deputy First Minister. I do not agree with him, but at least he speaks like a man who believes in what he says. However, the First Minister (Designate) spoke without passion or conviction. He spoke, not as someone who had something to say, but as someone who had to say something. That was the sum total of his short contribution. I listened to his case to see whether it would justify the abandonment of the Ulster Unionist Party’s election commitment. It did not.

Rt Hon David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. It may be in order for the Member to say that he does not believe me, but it is not in order for him to say that I do not believe myself. I do.

Mr Peter Robinson: I note, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, that you have chosen not to rule on that matter.
I also listened out for an explanation as to why he is setting up what everyone knows will be an embryo united Ireland. He is setting up all-Ireland bodies with executive powers which, at this stage, are clearly unaccountable to the Assembly. There was no explanation for that. I also listened for his reasoning for handing over responsibility for further developments to people outside the Unionist community. That did not come either.
As the Deputy First Minister (Designate) spoke, I detected the distinction that can be made between his stance on decommissioning and mine. He says, quite rightly, that decommissioning, in the form in which we are discussing it, is a voluntary matter, and that it is up to the organisations that hold weapons to decide whether to hand them over. He then jumps from that position to saying that decommissioning will not happen unless we agree to this kind of accommodation.
The question arising from the report is not will decommissioning happen, but is it right to have in government those who refuse to decommission. That is the issue that we must decide. It is a key issue for Unionists in particular, because Unionists of all parties, except perhaps one, have an electoral commitment on this matter. There are four stages on the road to Sinn Féin/IRA membership of an executive.

Mr Martin McGuinness: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. Would you point out to MrRobinson that there is no such organisation as SinnFéin/IRA in the Chamber?

Lord Alderdice: I am afraid that it is rather difficult for me to rule in respect of the way Members address each other, unless it is perfectly plain that they are using disreputable and unparliamentary language. Members do not always refer to each other as one might wish. I register that, but I am not sure that I can rule in the way that the Member wants me to.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Further to that point of order. I take exception to the remark. When I came into this Chamber I was asked to sign a book, and after my name I put the name of my political party and a designation of Nationalist or Unionist. I did all of that, and at no stage in the process did anyone from my party sign as Sinn Féin/IRA. For that reason we take exception to the use of this language, and I wish you, as Initial Presiding Officer, to point out to MrRobinson and to anyone else using that term that they are totally out of order.

Lord Alderdice: I can certainly confirm that the Member and his Colleagues signed the book in precisely the way that the Member has described. There is no question about that, and, as far as I am aware, when the Member stood for election he did so in the same way. However, the Member is asking me to rule that other Members are out of order when they choose to make a certain reference. That is a problem for me, because one of the purposes of having absolute privilege in the Chamber is not to enable people to say things which they could not say in other places but to enable them to be free to say what they believe.
As long as the language used is not unparliamentary, I have to adhere to the principle that allows a degree of freedom of speech — and that privilege is accorded — and it would be difficult for me to make a ruling that would accommodate the Member’s request. I know that this is unwelcome, and other Members in the Chamber have found rulings which I have given on matters not altogether different from this unwelcome, but I do not think that there is anything other that I can do under the current Standing Orders.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I consider the language used to be unparliamentary, and I would like you to rule it as such.

Lord Alderdice: I can understand that you may. I have been asked to rule on other matters — for example, in respect of comments that have been regarded as deeply unflattering and discourteous to women Members — and I have looked into them as best I can and have found myself unable to rule on them.
Some of what has been said in respect of women Members has been regarded as discourteous and unflattering, and manifestly so, and I said so at the time. However, it remained within what is parliamentary. If an inaccurate description is being used, that does not make it unparliamentary. Even if the Member regarded it as unflattering and discourteous to be referred to in that way, that would not make it unparliamentary. However, if the Member is saying that there is some accusation in the reference, that makes the matter somewhat complex, I will try to look at it as best I can.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Clearly in the Member’s remarks an accusation is being levelled at my party, and the Initial Presiding Officer has indicated —

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer.

Lord Alderdice: I cannot take a point of order during a point of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: He did not say "a point of order".

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Member should wait until my point of order is finished.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: He did not say "a point of order".

Mr Martin McGuinness: I said "a further point of order".

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Member did not.

Lord Alderdice: Order. Had I not believed it to be a point of order I would not have taken it because it would have been an intervention during Mr Robinson’s speech. I am taking it as a point of order, and then I will take Dr Paisley’s point of order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have made my point. Quite clearly, in the course of the Member’s contribution, a serious allegation was levelled against 18 Members of this House. As Initial Presiding Officer, you have indicated that if accusations were levelled, you would have to consider the matter further and take a view on it. I now wish you to do so.

Lord Alderdice: Any time Members have raised questions and asked me to look at them, I have done so to the best of my ability and reported to the next Assembly sitting. I will do so again in this matter.
The Member made one remark which needs a brief response. It is established and accepted practice that a remark made in respect of a party does not carry the same kind of connotation as one made in respect of an individual. When the Member said that in making a remark about the party as a whole accusations were being levelled against 18 individuals, it is my understanding that, in parliamentary terms, that is not the case and that remarks which might be made of a party cannot be judged at the same level and in the same way as remarks which were levelled in respect of an individual. It is important that I point that out.
However the Member has made a request, and I respect that request. I will look into it, and I will respond and give a ruling at the next sitting.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Further to my point —

Lord Alderdice: I am afraid that, in the order of things, I must take DrPaisley.

Mr Martin McGuinness: This is an important point.

Lord Alderdice: Would the Member please resume his seat. DrPaisley’s was the next point of order and after that — if there is a further point of order — I will take it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of procedure, Sir. Surely a Member cannot rise up after making a point of order and start a discussion on the ruling made by the Chair. It must be prefaced by the words "On a further point of order". The Member did not do that. He thought he would just carry on his conversation with the Chair. I am pointing out to the House, and I think you will agree with me, that even if we are on a point of order, I can only address the Chair if the Chair takes a further point of order from me.

Lord Alderdice: There is no doubt that the Member is correct. That is the proper way to handle things. I confess that in these early months, I have largely accepted the fact that many Members will be less experienced than he in these matters and will be learning. I have no doubt that what he has said — and it is absolutely correct — will be taken on board by other Members and that they will respect that.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Further to the point made by the Initial Presiding Officer in relation to whether or not an accusation is made against an individual as opposed to a political party, the Initial Presiding Officer should take on board very seriously indeed the fact that Sinn Féin has lost many of its members as a result of people being killed. A climate has been created on the outside whereby SinnFéin was demonised, whereby it was effectively set up, whereby people like JohnDavey and BernardO’Hagan — elected Sinn Féin councillors — lost their lives.
The Initial Presiding Officer should consider that an accusation against a political party is possibly even more serious than an accusation against an individual, because it can affect the lives of so many more people.

Lord Alderdice: I respect what the Member says. It will undoubtedly form part of my considerations. If Members wish to make points of order it would be helpful if they could begin by pointing out that they wish to raise a point of order. Otherwise the distinction between points of order and other interventions disappears — to no one’s advantage.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. We have privilege within this Chamber. Members who feel strongly about allegations regarding their links to and membership of the IRA should look at today’s ‘Daily Telegraph’, where the Member who was on his feet is referred to as a leading member of the IRA’s army council. Let us see if he sues the ‘Daily Telegraph’ instead of lecturing people here with his nauseating hypocrisy, given the murders that his organisation has carried out in the Province.

Lord Alderdice: I hope that we will not find ourselves stretching questions of privilege in this place. MrRobinson should continue with his intervention.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am grateful. That was an interesting distraction. I was not aware that Sinn Fein was so embarrassed and ashamed of its relationship with the IRA, particularly given the person who raised the issue.
He is a self-confessed IRA man. I have watched him on television confessing his IRA membership — a former commander of the IRA in Londonderry, at present a member of the IRA’s army council. Let us see what he has had to say about his relationship with the IRA. I quote from the ‘Irish News’ of 23June1986:
" ‘Freedom can only be gained at the point of an IRA rifle’ SinnFéin’s Martin McGuinness said at yesterday’s Wolfe Tone commemoration".

Mr Francie Molloy: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Of what relevance is this to the debate we have in hand? Surely the Member should be speaking about the report?

Lord Alderdice: One of the difficulties is that interventions often cause a debate to stray from the matter before the House. If an intervention is made, it is difficult to blame the Member for responding to it. Let us try to focus on the point at issue.

Mr Francie Molloy: You should be reminding the Member that he should return to the report in question.

Lord Alderdice: I have been reasonably flexible and generous with quite a number of Members, given the points of order that have been raised. Even within the past 10 or 15 minutes, there has been a degree of flexibility and generosity in that regard. Therefore I do not feel able to move in the way you have requested me to.

Mr Peter Robinson: I find it quite touching that Mr"We’ll go back to what we do best" Molloy is so interested in hearing my remarks on this report.
I was saying that there were four steps in the process towards membership by members of SinnFéin/IRA in a Northern Ireland Executive. They are not debatable; they are not something that we, as an Assembly, can alter. They are set down in statute, and they are going to be taken. Indeed, some of them have already been taken.
The first step was the determination. A determination had to be made by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), and that was effectively done on 18December. It was included, in large part, in the report that was received by the Assembly on 18January, and it is contained within this report, which includes an addendum. So the determination has been made, and there is nothing that the Assembly can do about it.
The second step is approval by the Assembly of that determination, and I will come back to that in a moment. The third step is the provision by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of the necessary Initial Standing Orders to enable us to run the mechanism. And the fourth step is the one by which the Initial Presiding Officer triggers that mechanism within the Assembly.
The first step has already been taken, and we need to recognise that, as far as Unionist Members of the Assembly are concerned, the only one of those four steps over which we have any control whatsoever is the present stage, the giving of formal approval to that determination.
Is there any Unionist Member brave enough to say that he trusts the Secretary of State to withhold those Standing Orders to avoid Unionists being placed in the embarrassing position of having Sinn Féin/IRA representatives in a shadow executive or a full executive? And is there any Unionist who would expect the Initial Presiding Officer to do anything other than fulfil his obligation to enforce those Standing Orders?
The Secretary of State has full power, under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, to release the Standing Orders to the Initial Presiding Officer. He will then have an obligation. This will not be a matter of his choice — he will have no say whatsoever. He will have to act immediately on the new Standing Orders that the Secretary of State releases to him. So the only step over which Unionist Members will have any say is the present step.
Are they relying upon the SDLP’s supporting them on a motion to exclude Sinn Féin/IRA from the Executive if they allow this step to be taken?
12.00
Anyone who believes that the SDLP is going to turn on Sinn Fein/IRA does not understand the nuances of Nationalist politics. Do they believe that the IRA might begin to decommission? It will certainly not begin to decommission under the terms that the Deputy First Minister (Designate) has suggested where it would be substantial and verifiable and clearly part of a process to completely decommission. Perhaps it is what they have been telling some of their colleagues around the corridors. There will be a scorched earth policy. They will allow this to go through but when it comes to the stage of appointing people they are going to pull the rug from under the Assembly, precipitate a crisis and bring the House down unless decommissioning has begun.
Do they really believe what their leader is telling them on this matter? Indeed, that might be an issue worth exploring. Let me ask the Ulster Unionist Members, who are going to take a key decision today, tomorrow or the next day, if there is any one of them who really believes that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party is not prepared to sit down in a shadow executive or a full executive with Members of Sinn Féin/IRA before decommissioning has taken place. I would like them to put their hands up if they are prepared to risk their political careers and resign from this House if he does not. Let us see the hands go up from those on the Ulster Unionist Benches who trust their leader in that respect. Not one of them trusts him to do that. Not one of them is prepared to do it. They are not prepared to risk their careers by doing so, but they are prepared to risk the future of the Union by voting for this motion.
We all recognise that in our lives there are moments when we will take a decision that will have profound consequences. There are even occasions when it is of such profound consequence that it will have an effect, not only on ourselves but on all those around us. This is one of those occasions.
The way Ulster Unionist Members and others vote in this debate today will have consequences for the Union. They cannot escape those consequences. They cannot sometime in the future say "We were loyal members of the Ulster Unionist Party, we faithfully followed our leader, and we did what he asked us to do." Now that they have been warned of the consequences they cannot say at some later stage that they did not know what the outcome was going to be. They have been warned what it is going to be. To vote for this report is to vote for the destruction of the Union and for Sinn Féin/IRA in government. They need not try to tell their electorate otherwise.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I welcome this report. On 18January I focused mainly on the North/South aspect. Today I am going to turn to an equally important, equally valid aspect of the implementation of the Belfast Agreement — the British-Irish Council (BIC).
Before coming to that I want to say a few words about another element of this report — the Civic Forum. There are a number of key principles which we, as a party, believe are reflected in this report. We believe that in the structures for the Civic Forum there is indeed a wide representation of those groupings who have a reasonable right to be represented. There is transparency about the nomination and election procedures, and if there are problems in practice, there is written into them the provision for a review of the practice of the Civic Forum. What we wish to avoid is a situation where members of the Civic Forum have what a Conservative Prime Minister of the 1930s, Stanley Baldwin, referred to as "power without responsibility: the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages". We do not want that to apply to the Civic Forum, and we believe that the structure, as offered, will safeguard against that.
It is said currently that some of the difficulties being felt in south-east Asia, in terms of the economic crisis, relate to so-called crony capitalism. The provisions in the report ensure that the Civic Forum will not be subject to crony corporatism. The report envisages that not only will the North/South Ministerial Council meet in so-called shadow form, but so will the British-Irish Council. They will meet at roughly the same time. We hope to have parity of esteem on issues such as the size of the secretariat to the British-Irish Council relative to that for the North/South Ministerial Council, and on the location for a permanent support secretariat for the BIC.
At the shadow meeting stage, the BIC will consist of representatives from Belfast, Dublin and London, and the smaller islands. We shall have to await representation from the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. Perhaps much further down the line English regions will be represented. In the interim, we in the Ulster Unionist Party are making our best efforts to seek the opinions of political parties and leaders in Scotland on the working of the BIC and are giving them our opinions.
The effort to get the BIC up and running and to formulate its procedures, which is mentioned in the report, is a complex matter but it is also a noble endeavour. We will keep in mind international precedents, and notably the Scandinavian example, the Nordic Council. Decision making in the British-Irish Council is to be by consensus. That can work, as the Scandinavian example demonstrates.
The BIC will have to settle the conundrum of who speaks for England. We will have to ensure that whatever procedures are adopted to represent English interests within the BIC, the views of the 50million or so residents of England do not swamp the views of the 14million residents of the so-called Celtic fringes.
The report refers to a work programme for the British-Irish Council. I welcome that prospect, and the Ulster Unionist Party has strong views on the matter. According to IDB figures, between 1991 and 1996, the sale of manufactured goods from NorthernIreland to the RepublicofIreland increased by 60%, whereas those going from NorthernIreland to GreatBritain increased by only 22%.
It is against that background that we will be anxious to use the BIC to facilitate trade links between NorthernIreland and its largest external market — the rest of the UnitedKingdom. In that regard, I commend papers that were produced last month by the regional Confederation of British Industry on the issue of east-west transport and business proposals under strand three of the Belfast Agreement. We should look at the pricing, efficiency and frequency of sea links between NorthernIreland, Scotland, north-west England, and at the onward road and rail communications to London and the channel ports.
The Belfast Agreement stresses mutual benefit as much in the context of strand three as in the context of strand two, which we discussed previously. For example, the Dumfries and Galloway region of Scotland is well known to NorthernIreland people in terms of tourism. People from here visit places such as Ayr and Dumfries. It is one of the historic parts of Scotland and contains the homes of such great Scots as SirWalterScott, ThomasCarlyle and RabbieBurns, or BobbieBurns as the Taoiseach referred to him in a speech in Edinburgh last October. For all that, that part of Scotland is considered peripheral, relative to the central belt area containing Edinburgh and Glasgow. It has some of the highest unemployment and lowest gross domestic product per head of any part of Scotland. So perhaps they have as much to gain by having stronger links across the Irish Sea as we have.
Turning to Merseyside, Liverpool’s economic problems are well known, and, indeed, parts of that region have the same objective status, at least at the moment, as Northern Ireland has. Anything that would revitalise the ports of north-west England would be just as good for that region as it would for Northern Ireland. Indeed, the north-west English region of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), along with its counterpart in Northern Ireland, are campaigning along those lines.
As Edmund Burke said — I know that Ulster Unionists who quote him are sometimes upbraided for it, but he was a great Irishman and a great British parliamentarian, and the two need not be incompatible —
"England and Ireland may flourish together. The world is large enough for both."
I am glad that, last October, Bertie Ahern was in Edinburgh opening a Republic of Ireland Consulate. Indeed, there is also one in Cardiff now. I look forward to the day when the normalisation of north/south relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland ensures that we also have a Republic of Ireland Consulate in the centre of Belfast.
The British-Irish Council is, in part, visionary; it is, in part, practical. It recognises the strength of human and cultural connections between these islands. The great historian HAL Fisher, in his history of Europe, referred to its peoples as energetic mongrels, and given the behaviour of some Assembly Members, that description seems quite apt. The comment was to do with the extent of ethnic mixing, because there is no such thing as a "pure English race" or a "pure Irish race". Those who believe there is have often been misguided, and have done terrible deeds on the basis of such ideology.
Such ethnic mixing is supremely so in the case of the peoples who live in the islands of Britain and Ireland in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. The genius of those peoples derives in large part from such human mixing, and the British-Irish Council is the institution in the Belfast Agreement which best reflects that fact. I urge support of this report.

Dr Sean Farren: As we all know, today’s report brings us to the very critical, penultimate phase of the preparations required of the Assembly, prior to the formation of the Executive, the opening meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, the transfer of power, the formation of the Civic Forum and the British-Irish Council. Despite the many late nights and the very difficult problems that had to be resolved during the negotiations on each of these matters, the overall result is one in which we can take considerable satisfaction.
Never before has such a level of agreement been reached between parties from the two main traditions in Northern Ireland, and between these parties and the two Governments in exercising ultimate responsibility for political relations in Ireland and Britain. To achieve this stage, signalled by this report, we have all had to travel very difficult paths. For some, the journey has been much more difficult than for others. I commend all those who have accepted the need for the honourable compromises which the Good Friday Agreement, and all that has followed from it, have required. What those parties which have not accepted these compromises have demonstrated, as today’s debate and previous ones have so frequently underlined, is that they have no capacity to produce any alternative with the remotest possibility of addressing the divisions in our society.
On the contrary, they persist with a totally negative approach which is more likely to deepen and widen divisions than to provide bridges leading to agreement and reconciliation.
As a result of the compromises and the efforts of all the pro-agreement parties since Good Friday, we have put together a positive and remarkable blueprint for governing relationships in Northern Ireland, between North and South and between the people of Ireland and Britain as a whole. On the basis of that blueprint, we can begin mobilising our political resources to lead and support economic and social development, and, ultimately, genuine reconciliation in our divided community.
The hopes and expectations that were engendered by the Good Friday Agreement have been brought many steps closure to realisation. The opportunity to take responsibility for promoting economic and social reconstruction is at last within our grasp, but, as we all know, the challenges facing us are enormous. Economically, many sectors are showing significant signs of development, but to develop further they need a stable and peaceful political atmosphere. Other sectors continue to experience contraction and decline. In addition, unemployment persists at unacceptable levels, resulting in the marginalisation and poverty that are experienced by many. That sits uncomfortably alongside the affluence of others.
Peace and stability are even more essential if we are to attract inward investment, create new enterprises and provide for those who are affected by decline and contraction, the unemployed, the marginalised and a growing, young labour market.
In taking up all those responsibilities, which are eagerly anticipated by the wider society, many sectors of which will be joining us in this endeavour through their participation in the Civic Forum, we welcome the report’s detail on that Forum and the detail on the British-Irish Council. We anticipate many benefits economically, socially and culturally within the context of the new political relationships that that Council will encourage.
As we audit what has been achieved since Good Friday, we note that decommissioning remains the issue upon which hardly any progress has been recorded. While decommissioning is not a precondition for progress in any other area of the Good Friday Agreement, neither is the rest of the agreement a precondition for progress on decommissioning. I want to see the whole question of decommissioning removed as a matter of controversy and left to the international body, as laid down in the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Patrick Roche: Will the Member give way?

Dr Sean Farren: I will not give way.
I concur with many Members who have been calling for the matter to be treated in precisely that way, but that can only happen when there is confidence that the process is under way. I recognise that the absence of any report which would clearly signal that the decommissioning body is making progress speaks for itself.
There is nothing for the international body to report, apart from the destruction of some LVF weapons and explosives before Christmas. I trust that Gen de Chastelain and his colleagues will soon have matters of more substance to report on decommissioning.
The exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues and the opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, to which all pro-agreement parties voluntarily subscribed, can only mean that we continue doing all in our power and influence to rid society of illegally held arms in the possession of paramilitary organisations.
Using whatever power and influence that we have to this end is one of the fundamental tests of our commitment to what the agreement states to be exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues. It is a test we must meet as constructively as possible in order to instill the confidence and trust essential if the institutional blueprints before us in today’s report are to become the realities for which we all hope.
In the past week there has been talk of where some who are here today believe we will be in 15 years time. I would like to think that by then we will be living in a totally peaceful, much more reconciled, more united and more prosperous society than the one we are living in today. If we are, it will be because we have implemented all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed we will arrive at such a situation only by laying foundations today which are firm, just and equitable; foundations that respect and honour all traditions, and which, above all, are fundamentally informed by democratic and peaceful values.
MrPresidingOfficer and Members of the Assembly, I commend the report and the determination it contains as an essential step towards bringing this about.

Mr Gerry Adams: A Chathaoirligh, ar dtús, mo bhuíochas leis an Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) agus leís an Leas Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe). B’fhéidir gur cuimhin leat mé ag rá ar an lá a fuair muid an tuarascáil, go raibh a lán rudaí inti nach raibh Sinn Féin sásta leo.
Ach táimid sásta go bhfuil dáta cinnte inti nuair a bhéas David Trimble ag cur moltaí chum tosaigh — [Interruption]

Mr Alex Maskey: A Chathaoirligh —

Lord Alderdice: Order.

Several Members: A point of order.

Lord Alderdice: I will take a point of order from MsMorrice, as she was the first person to catch my eye.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, there is some commotion in the Galleries to which I would like to draw your attention.

Lord Alderdice: I am grateful to you for drawing that to my attention. I am finding it difficult to hear the points of order coming from all areas. Mr McCartney had a point of order, as did MrNeeson and then Mr Maskey.

Mr Robert McCartney: Further to the point of order that has just been made, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I do not agree at all with the politics of Mr Adams, but I do think he has a right to be heard.

Lord Alderdice: That is unquestionably true.

Mr Alex Maskey: A Chathaoirligh, you are aware that this matter was raised at a recent meeting. I urge you to declare now that the Gallery be quiet or be cleared. This is totally unsatisfactory. It is your duty to clear the Gallery if people persistently come there to try to disrupt democratically elected Members who are trying to speak on behalf of their constituents. Perhaps you might need assistance to do that.

Lord Alderdice: The point the Member raises is absolutely correct, and if there is any further commotion whatsoever from the Gallery I will have no option but to clear the Gallery as a whole. That must be clear to Members. Those who come to the Galleries to observe the proceedings are very welcome to do so, but if they start making a noise they are attempting to participate in the proceedings, and that is another matter altogether — one that is completely out of order and unacceptable. I hope that that will be taken into account, and if there is any further commotion, the Galleries will be cleared until at least after lunchtime.
I apologise to Mr Adams. I was trying to ensure that I heard the translation of what he was saying. My apologies if I was not sufficiently attentive to the other matter.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Will the Chair make it clear that visitors to the House, unless they are accompanied by a Member, cannot walk along the corridors with notebooks writing down the names that are on doors, and opening doors to find out who are in the rooms. I have raised this matter with the authorities, as the Initial Presiding Officer knows, and the next time this happens, the people in their rooms will have no option but to forcibly remove these people from the corridor. Are we being set up by people who roam freely the corridors of the House, taking down names and the numbers of the rooms?

Lord Alderdice: The situation in respect of regulations for the conduct of visitors to the building is very clear indeed. There are some public areas, the principal one being the Central Hall. Visitors are permitted into the Central Hall but they cannot go elsewhere, even if they have passes, unless they are accompanied by a passholder. That is very clear. If there are occasions when the regulations are broken, and it ought not to happen, I would be grateful if these were drawn to the attention of the doorkeeping staff and, indeed, to the attention of the Keeper of the House. The regulations are very clear indeed.

Mr Eddie McGrady: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. If — and I hope that it will not happen — you are called upon to exercise your authority in order to deal with disorder in the public Gallery, will you bear in mind that most of the people who visit the Chamber are exceptionally well behaved. I hope that your remarks and instructions will be directed only towards those who are causing the disruption.

Lord Alderdice: I accept entirely what Mr McGrady said. It is rightfully said; it is well said. All visitors have a duty to respect the rules that have been set down and, indeed, which are pointed out to them when they come. It is difficult enough for me to keep order in the Chamber and keep an eye on Members; it is quite impossible for me to sort out matters in respect of visitors in the Gallery. Therefore if there is a commotion I have no option but to clear the Gallery as a whole, though that would be regrettable. I hope what I have said makes the position clear, and that it is not necessary to do so.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. The House should be mindful that in the public Gallery today there are families who have suffered as a direct result of Sinn Féin/IRA violence — people some of whose relatives not only will not be heard from again but cannot ever have their voice heard in the Chamber. It is in that regard that we should question whether a small disruption is so totally out of place.

Lord Alderdice: Let me be very clear. One of the purposes of parliamentary procedure is to ensure that no matter how strongly Members feel about issues — and many Members have many reasons to feel very strongly about things that are said or done — their behaviour is kept within the bounds of procedure and proper rules and regulations.
While I have no doubt that many people have reason to feel strongly, particularly about the matters that may be dealt with in a Chamber of this kind, this cannot be an excuse for breaching regulations and rules that are properly set down. They must apply in the Chamber to Members, to the visitors Galleries and, indeed, to the press Gallery.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Surely in another place, when an interruption takes place in the Gallery, there is no attempt to clear it. The person who interrupts is taken out by those in charge of the Gallery. I would like you to give us a ruling. Can a Member bring 13adults and a child into the coffee room that is supposed to be for the use of Members? Is that in order? Is that the way this place works?

Lord Alderdice: Let me deal with the first question that you raise. It has been the fact that, on occasion in the past, some visitors in the Gallery have made a noise or other commotion. In some cases it was merely people getting a little excited; in other cases they were conversing rather too loudly with their neighbours. It was not always malign. That matter was pointed out by the doorkeeping staff who attended to it, and everything was fine.
It was also clear — and I sought and received a report on this — that a number of visitors came, not on their own, but in a group with the clear intention of creating a commotion. The doorkeepers made it clear that such behaviour was not acceptable. Unfortunately, when those visitors were leaving, they upbraided the doorkeepers in a thoroughly unpleasant, inappropriate and unacceptable way.
I appreciate what DrPaisley and MrMcGrady have said — that most visitors have an interest in what is happening in the Chamber and behave properly. Unfortunately, if there are visitors who create difficulties that the doorkeepers cannot deal with on an individual basis, I must deal with the situation by clearing the Gallery, for it is not possible for me to begin to identify individuals.
In respect of the other matter which Dr Paisley asked me to address, the rules with regard to the coffee lounge and other places are also quite clear. I must beg Members’ indulgence. It is hard enough for me to deal with points of order that refer to what happens in the Chamber and in the Gallery, but to make an immediate ruling on a point of order about what happens in the coffee lounge does create some difficulty. The Member has quite rightly raised this matter, and I will ask the Keeper of the House to go to the coffee lounge and deal with the situation as appropriate.

Mr Gerry Adams: First, will I be permitted to finish my remarks before the lunch break?

Lord Alderdice: Yes.

Mr Gerry Adams: Secondly, I do not mind the noise in the Gallery. It struck me as some sort of strange virus, like DUP flu, for instance, because what was happening in the Gallery was merely an echo of what was happening on the Benches opposite. With all the focus on the Public Gallery, the point was missed that these Gentlemen, and one Lady, have always conducted themselves in this way. At some point, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you should call them to order.
Bhí mé ag rá, sular cuireadh isteach orm, nach raibh Sinn Féin sásta leis an tuarascáil ach go raibh muid sásta go raibh dáta cinnte inti nuair a bhéas David Trimble ag cur moltaí chun tosaigh.
Tá an lá sin buailte linn inniu agus tá na moltaí romhainn: sin rud maith. Is céim thábhachtach í, agus sílim nuair a bhéas an díospóireacht seo críochnaithe — amárach nó Dia Céadaoine — go gcaithfidh Rialtas na Breataine céim eile a ghlacadh leis na h-instidiúidí a bhunú.
When Sinn Féin first received the report about one month ago from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) — and I thank them for today’s report with its determination — it had a number of reservations, and those reservations stand. Some of my Colleagues will deal with them later in the debate.
We objected, for instance, to the absence of a Department of Equality, a very negative step; to the illogical fracturing of education into separate Departments; to the failure even to mention a junior Ministry with responsibility for children; and to the fact that in December the implementation bodies were diluted during the negotiations. Sinn Féin feels that much less was achieved than should have been.
Sinn Féin also has reservations about the Civic Forum. That was to empower civic society and involve people in a whole range of important issues.
Sinn Féin approaches these reports and this determination in a strategic way. It wants to see a new society on this island. It wants to see the Union ending. It wants to see — and this is only possible in that context — the aged taken care of, young people given opportunities, agriculture dealt with, and all those who are disadvantaged and oppressed being helped. Only when that happens will the Members opposite be liberated in terms of their sense of who and what they are.
This determination comes at a very important point for Unionism, and I want to address the rest of my remarks to where Unionism is now. The power, the influence and the monopoly on the affairs of this island, which Unionism used to represent, is gone. It is over, done with and gone. Some Unionists know this, and they accept it. Perhaps they even welcome this development. Some do not know, and they are the ones who cry the loudest like empty vessels. They do not know that the old days are over, that the old agenda has failed. In many ways, they are more to be pitied than to be scorned.
Others know this too, and they have great difficulties accepting the consequences of the changes that are coming or accepting their responsibilities for this new era. Or, at an intellectual level, they do accept that changes are needed, but emotionally they have great difficulties. This should be easy for Republicans to understand. They too have experienced a roller coaster of emotional and intellectual turmoil, but from a totally different basis. We want to try to be agents of the changes that are required. We want to try to be part of the transformation that is required if a real and lasting peace with justice is to be established.
Some Unionists may hark back to the old days, the heady memories of Brookeborough and Carson, or even the ghosts of O’Neill and Faulkner. And there is an understandable interest in how the Ulster Unionist Party will vote, and what size the Unionist vote led by Mr Trimble will be. However, that is to miss the point, to miss what we have been trying to do and what we want to do. This is as difficult for the representatives of Sinn Féin and for the wider Republican constituency as it is for Unionists. The point is that no matter what our party political and ideological differences are, no matter the difficulties, the hardship and the grief that we have all come through, the new dispensation under the Good Friday Agreement divides us into pro- and anti-agreement camps.
If he implements the agreement, Mr Trimble, in his capacity as First Minister, has the support of over two thirds of the parties represented here. That is his own party, the SDLP, SinnFéin, the Women’s Coalition, the Alliance Party and the Progressive Unionist Party. That is the new potential in all of this — not just looking over our shoulders at some fracturing of Unionism. Mr Trimble, as he implements the agreement, must uphold the rights of all citizens and respect the democratic mandate of all parties. There must be no more second-class citizens within this island. On these issues, the pro-agreement parties are in the majority and have a clear mandate from the vast majority of people on this island who are, to a man and woman, on the same side.
It is difficult for me to contemplate being on the same side as the Ulster Unionist Party. It is difficult for them as well, but that is the reality. David Ervine said that it is also difficult for the Loyalist people, and I recognise that. In all of this, we have to look to the future. This is an important day, and this Assembly is going to clearly and decisively vote for this determination and this report. Sinn Féin, despite our reservations, is also going to vote for it. After that there needs to be speedy movement — [Interruption]
Bob McCartney is attempting to intimidate the Member behind him.
Since last summer we have been waiting for these institutions to be put into shadow form. We want to see moves made speedily to allow these institutions to assume shadow form, so that power can be transferred from London and Dublin on 10 March.
In response to the remarks made by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), I would like to say once again that SinnFéin remains totally committed to every aspect of the Good Friday Agreement and to restate SinnFéin’s commitment to that agreement.
Of course, this could be a messy debate, given the juvenile, schoolboyish and schoolgirlish antics of those on the Benches opposite. They provide light relief on what could, otherwise, be a boring day. But when the debate is finished, the Assembly will have sent a very clear message to the world that it wants the Good Friday Agreement to be implemented. The onus will then clearly be on the British Secretary of State to trigger the d’Hondt system, so that real power can be transferred from London and Dublin.
Sin é. Sin an méid. Mar a dúirt mé ar dtús, níl muid sásta le achan rud sa tuarascáil seo, ach táimid ag vótáil ar a son.
The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 12.41pm until 2.00 pm.

Mr Sean Neeson: I generally support the report from the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate). Some Members have complained about a delay in the presentation of the report, and I share these concerns. The report did not arrive a day late — it arrived about three and a half months too late. While the deadline of 31 October has been missed, I sincerely hope that the deadline for the transfer of powers to the Assembly will be met. I hope that by 10 March the Assembly will be well on its way to assuming the role for which it was formed and Members on their way to assuming the duties which, as elected representatives, they have been tasked to carry out.
There is great expectation in the community at large about the prospects for the Assembly, and for its working for people regardless of their age, religion, gender, ethnic origin or disability. One important thing that could well develop once the Assembly is fully working — and I hope it does — is that more young people in Northern Ireland may be encouraged to become involved in politics. Clearly this morning’s events would not encourage that, but on occasions, such as when there have been delegations to Ministers on integrated education and the extension of the natural gas pipeline, the political groups in the Assembly have shown that they can work together on the bread-and-butter issues.
It is up to the Members of the Assembly, collectively and individually, to ensure that we deliver, and deliver on time. Both Governments are working at full steam to ensure that the necessary legislation will be brought forward on time. I commend this, and I hope that developments inside and outside the Assembly will progress in parallel with the efforts of both Governments to ensure that full devolution is delivered.
Since the initial presentation on the restructuring of the Departments was made I have reflected, and I think that there are a number of issues which need to be seriously addressed by those who produced the report. For example, the Education Department is going to be responsible for appointments to education and library boards. Some Assembly Members have already been contacted by the various libraries expressing concern that libraries have been put into the Culture, Arts and Leisure Department.
No doubt this was a balancing act. I have long believed that tourism should have been included within the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I suppose that they have included Libraries in that Department in order to balance things out. That is no way to structure Government Departments. I appeal to those concerned to give further thought to this.
I strongly believe that the Environment and Heritage Service, which is currently in the Department of Environment, should have been included in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure because of its responsibility for archaeology and other heritage-related functions. I ask for that to be considered. Also, when we talk of museums we are talking about galleries as well.
As far as the six areas for co-operation and the implementation bodies are concerned, the Alliance Party would have preferred to have seen more implementation bodies established, even at this time. Clearly this was a point of dispute between the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists when they were working out their deal.
Energy should have been included in the areas for co-operation. As I said earlier, an all-party delegation met with the Minister to discuss the extension of the natural gas pipeline, and this is a clear example of where good North/South co-operation can lead to developments which can benefit people on both sides of the border.
One of the most important functions of the Assembly is to establish the scrutiny committees. Various Members talked about a "stitch-up" between the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP, and I hereby give warning that I do smell a rat. There will be 10Departments, and I strongly believe that there should be 10Committees to scrutinise them. Equally, I would like to think that there will be Committees to scrutinise the functions which will be brought to the centre — equality, community relations and the major issue of Europe.
It is in the best interests of the Assembly to have an all-inclusive approach towards the scrutiny of the legislation which will come forward. There are 108Members in this Assembly, and it is important that every Member be involved in the scrutiny committees. It is important that all Members have ownership of the powers which will be devolved to the Assembly.
Regrettably, the question of decommissioning seems to be the next major obstacle that we have to face. The polls in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ clearly showed the public’s concern on this issue. We have heard what BertieAhern said at the weekend. JohnBruton, at the Fine Gael ardfheis, made similar comments, as did most of the political leaders here.
We have got to remember that there are no preconditions in the GoodFriday Agreement to entry into an executive. However, we are almost 10months down the line from when the agreement was reached. There is a strong moral obligation on the paramilitaries, whether Republican or Loyalist, to start actual decommissioning. I realise that it is adifficultissue. The International Commission on Decommissioning was established by the agreement to deal with the question of decommissioning, and it should remain with that body.
I repeat the suggestion I made last week: to ensure a win/win situation, and not a win/lose situation, it is important that DavidTrimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionists, and GerryAdams, the president of SinnFéin, get round the table together. If that could be facilitated by GendeChastelain, there are possibilities there. They have to be explored now if we are to achieve devolution by the 10March deadline.
As we all know, the DUP amendment is simply a ruse to split the Ulster Unionists. Those who make some of the strongest statements about paramilitary connections should read yesterday’s issue of ‘SundayLife’ before making any future statements. The determination of the report is important, and I look forward to the full devolution of powers on 10March.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: The motion represents a further weakening of the Union. For the past 30years, under the impact of the terror of Ireland’s physical force exponents, the balance between Unionists and Nationalists in Ulster has increasingly tilted in favour of the Irish Nationalist agenda.
We in the Northern Ireland Unionist Party will vote against this motion, not because we do not believe in peace but because the people who elected us would have no future in a united Ireland that was achieved by terrorism, ethnic cleansing and political coercion. The Unionist people would have ceased to exist. The evidence of our eyes, the experiences that we have lived through, and the fact that the wonderful and high-flown sentiments to which Nationalist politicians such as those in the SDLP, or, indeed, those in SinnFéin/IRA who are engaging in the present charm offensive, bear no relationship whatever to the sufferings and abuse that have been inflicted on Unionists in pursuit of the objective of Irish unity.
All those things teach us that the romantic illusion of a united Ireland is undercut by the sordid reality of cruelty, lies and deception. Actions of the most savage and reprehensible kind, about which Irish Nationalists have taken up a stance of collective denial for too many years, have resulted in the Unionist population of Ulster being subjected to a brutal and efficient campaign of terror. Too often we have had to stand at the open graves of murder victims and listen to ministers of religion telling us that the victim had been cut down by a savage act of mindless violence.
Those who said that the violence was mindless were wrong, however well intentioned they may have been. The assertion that the bombings and the killings were mindless conceal the fact that the violence was part of a cold-blooded, callous strategy based on the vicious principle that violence pays and, in the case of Ireland, that unity necessitated its use.
While Irish Republicans pursued their objective by physical force, constitutional Nationalists sought the same objectives by a process of gradualism. The motion represents the triumph of the policy of gradual Irish unification. In case the Unionists fail to follow through by committing collective suicide, the arsenals and the explosives will be retained. There will be no decommissioning until it is adjudged that the momentum towards Irish unification is irreversible. The violence was never mindless. Even the most devilish and satanic acts, as the media described them, could be subsumed within the overall strategy because such acts terrorised and intimidated people who did not understand the role played by the fanatic in the Irish struggle.
Some weapons that are essential to the maintenance of control over Republican areas are in circulation. The remainder of the terrorist arsenals are stored away. The cynical calculation is that the IRA can get more out of the current situation by political means than by the application of physical force.
For the moment politics is more advantageous to the cause of unification than slaughter but the high priests who served Mother Ireland are ready to begin the ritual of human sacrifice again. Thousands of innocent lives are under threat and could be sacrificed if dark clouds arise to threaten the cult’s new dawn.
If the Unionists renege on their commitment to the all-Ireland peace process then the arsenals would be made available to those who have signed up to the physical force tradition. These Republicans understand that the machine that drives forward Irish unification operates on a trigger mechanism.
The SDLP is well aware of the gains that violence has made for Irish unity, but its conscience is clear. Its liturgical condemnations of violence are a matter of public record. The SDLP has to make a choice between a stable society in NorthernIreland in which people who may have acute differences of culture and religion can nevertheless live together as neighbours and its aspiration for a united Ireland. Faced with that choice, the SDLP invariably sacrifices stability now for its dream of a united Ireland. The SDLP is into denial about the extent to which its united Ireland policy contributes to the polarisation in this society.
The Northern Ireland Unionist Party rejects this motion setting up cross-border bodies, not only because they are an extravagant waste of money and make no economic sense but also because the sole rationale behind these functional institutions, which aim at a united Ireland through bureaucratic structures over time, are based on an Irish Nationalist agenda which is dangerously flawed, and has heaped untold misery on NorthernIreland over the last 30 years. The SDLP has put its Nationalist ideology and aspiration before the common good. The SDLP has preferred to tolerate deepening polarisation within Ulster as the necessary price to be paid for a united Ireland in some distant future.
The Belfast Agreement, which we in the Northern Ireland Unionist Party reject, represents a triumph for the SDLP’s gradualist approach to Irish unification.
The SDLP is in effect saying to Sinn Féin/IRA through the Humes-Adams relationship "It is our view that movement towards Irish unity can be advanced through cross-border bodies and the increasing involvement of Dublin in the everyday life of NorthernIreland, rather than by more years of murder and mayhem."
We are clear in our minds and in our analysis, which is why we will reject this motion today. We recognise that the violence of the IRA was never mindless. Note the importance of the statement made in ‘Ant-Oglach’, the official journal of the Irish Republican Army in 1967:
"Our strategy must be the perfect blending of politics and violence (political action and military force) at the most opportune time and under the most favourable circumstances."
Only four years later RobertMoss, in his book ‘Urban Guerrillas’, was able to set out in outline or overview a more detailed appraisal of the IRA’s intentions. In March 1971 the Provisional IRA was claiming, according to Moss, that they had formed a terrorist organisation in Ulster capable of a protracted campaign; that that campaign would lead, firstly, to the fall of the old Stormont Parliament and, secondly, to direct rule from Westminster; that the IRA campaign would divide Ulster into Roman Catholic and Protestant zones; that the IRA would mount a programme of selected assassinations.
Then the IRA forecast that all of this strategy would — to quote Moss —
"clear the way for the unresisting absorption of Ulster into a united Irish republic".
No one can read those strategic predictions without a cold shiver going down the spine. Think of the thousands murdered and injured because cold-hearted, callous, cynical and brutal men deliberately set out to sacrifice victims, lives and limbs in order to unify Ireland.
They fly in the face of the history of this island, which is a history of cultural difference and legitimate political division in spite of all the wickedness to which it has been subjected. Unionist people have demonstrated resilience and perseverance throughout 30 years of terrorism. They will not readily surrender to either physical force or political coercion. Why should they?
In 1986 we got another insight into this cruel and violent strategy which blends physical force and political activism — the Armalite and the ballot box. It was BrendanClifford who revealed in his writings that he had been an eyewitness to the setting up of the Provisional IRA by what he called respectable people in the RepublicofIreland. He has written, of that period, that the IRA was financed and supported in its initial phase by eminent people in all parts of the Republic.

Lord Alderdice: I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I tried to convince them that they were mistaken in their estimate of the social character of the Ulster Protestants. It is a pity that the Republic’s politicians and members of the IRA did not listen at that time.
I challenge those sitting on the SDLP Benches today: reject these men; kick them out of bed; come with those of us who are democrats; help us to create a peaceful state in NorthernIreland; and totally and utterly despise these people who have killed and murdered for years.

Lord Alderdice: I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Fraser Agnew: There are many in the House and perhaps many outside among the public who will look upon this as a historic day. Either today or tomorrow we will vote on the report that will determine the future government of this our country. Either today or tomorrow we will choose between what some believe is going to be a solution to all our problems and what others believe is a transitional period on a road to a united Ireland.
This report is one that others believe will secure the Union and bring accountable government to Northern Ireland. Others even believe that voting to endorse this report will prevent something even more dictatorial being imposed by London and Dublin.
What we probably will end up voting for — if it is this report that we are going to vote for — is a report cobbled together during another time, the week before Christmas that coincided with the air strikes by the United States of America against Iraq. And that was preceded by the historic elections to this Assembly after the historic referendum result. One could say that living in NorthernIreland today is living through history.
Having been elected by good people who feel alienated and demonised politically by the great and the good in London, Dublin and Washington, I must say that it is a humbling experience to be here today. Warnings that many of us have consistently given regarding the Belfast deal have been ignored, but the fact remains that you cannot square the circle of democracy with armed, unrepentant murderers in government.
These particular people have a curious mindset. They say that we are wrong and have to change; that they are right and do not have to change; that we should forget about our past while they remember theirs. That is the mindset that we as Unionists have to deal with.
The G7 group pontificated again at the weekend about the Executive and parallel decommissioning. Where have we heard all of this before? Senior politicians who were involved in the "Yes" campaign with an insight into the thinking of paramilitaries tell us again that there is a crisis. What have we all been saying from the very start?
It is inconceivable to think of having representatives of psychopathic IRA serial killers in government. I remind everyone in the Assembly that any chain is only as strong as its weakest link and that the weakest link in this process is the representation of heavily armed terrorists in this Chamber to whom the Labour Government have pandered and surrendered completely — and we have watched them do that. The total capitulation to these people will have many side effects for decades to come. The rule of law has now degenerated to the rule of farce. Violence has been shown to pay handsomely.
The precedent of an amnesty for future crimes has now been set with the Belfast deal. Who would have thought that after all the massacres and murders no one would serve any significant time in prison? The release on to our streets of some of the most violent men in Europe was degrading in the extreme for the victims of their crimes. I say with a heavy heart that those Unionists who negotiated the Belfast deal leave a dreadful legacy. I do not see what Unionism has achieved from this flawed agreement. Not one practical achievement has benefited the law-abiding Unionist.
Here we sit with the illusion of power, depending on SinnFéin/IRA to denounce and reject violence. If PresidentClinton, Tony "O’Blair" — that would be a good name for him, and I suppose that it will be said to be a deliberate mistake — BertieAhern and all the other influential opinion makers cannot make Sinn Féin/IRA turn away from violence, what hope is there for an outcome to the pathetic pleadings for a token gesture on decommissioning by some Unionist leaders in the Chamber? Decommissioning is not the only issue. Some of us fought for election to the Assembly on more than the decommissioning issue. We object to people serving in government as of right.
Token gestures are meaningless. Many people have told SinnFéin/IRA that their Semtex is not defensive and should be handed over. I suspect that there will be no decommissioning, no handing over of Semtex or other explosives. The illusion will be that everyone in SinnFéin is doing his best to influence matters. Those Unionists who concluded the Belfast Agreement in 1998 betrayed all the efforts that were made by our gallant security forces over the past 30years. They also betrayed all of those who lost their lives in the battle against Provisional IRA/SinnFéin terrorism.
No wonder the victims of terrorism do not rate anywhere in this deal. Those who faithfully supported the Ulster Unionist Party since its formation in NorthernIreland have been betrayed. People have entered into negotiations with armed murderers to secure the release of IRA murderers and bombers. The rule of law has been undermined by agreeing to a virtual amnesty for terrorist crime. The RUC will be destroyed, and those actions have led to the demoralisation of the Unionist people.
Paddy Fox, the dissident Republican recently kidnapped by SinnFéin/IRA, said
"I do not want to sit with a bag over my head for six hours."
He was referring to a kidnap attempt. We should realise that nothing has changed. The SinnFéin/IRA leopard has not changed its spots. The brutal murder of garda JerryMcCabe and the atrocious decision to drop the murder charges shows that in the Republic nothing has changed either. The same judiciary which for 30years failed the people of NorthernIreland by not extraditing the murderers and escapees to NorthernIreland, has now failed the garda; and the McCabe family.
The shocking and brutal killing of Eamon Collins by the IRA should be a warning about the seriousness of the situation. There is no doubt that at the end of the debate Unionists will vote with SinnFéin/IRA. It will probably be the third time in 10months that they have joined together politically against the rest of the Unionist family. I repeat that. I take no pleasure in saying that. There is a danger that the Ulster Unionist Party and SinnFéin/IRA will be inextricably linked because of this deal.
Is there a modern democracy anywhere where a minority has an equal say in government and where a section of that minority seeks to undermine the very institutions in which they have a very sizeable stake or share? I do not believe there is. These basic reasons, together with the fact that this is a process dependent on concessions to Sinn Féin/IRA terrorism, ensures that I will certainly be joining with those who are opposed to this report.

Mr David Ervine: As a well-known "traitor" and "betrayer", I support the motion. My party has some reservations, some of which were outlined by MrCedricWilson and, indeed, by the leader of the Alliance Party. The two large parties need to be aware that consultation does not simply mean having a chat and then doing what one wants to do anyway. Cognisance needs to be taken of that.
It is important to look at how far we have come before we consider jettisoning our desire, our vision for the future, to join those who at some point it may be worthwhile considering using parliamentary privilege against. This has been building and building, and I am getting pretty sick of it. I emphasise the word "hypocrites", and if they want to raise points of order during my speech I am happy that you facilitate them, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.
They need to remember, when they talk about honour, integrity and decency, how many of them had long and meaningful debates with me — when I was a representative not of the Progressive Unionist Party but of the Ulster Volunteer Force — in meetings all over the country and, indeed, in some of their houses. I do not want to do it, nor do I want to give Nationalism or Republicanism a cudgel with which to beat Unionism, but I am not prepared to see the holier-than-thou attitude prevail.
I am neither a traitor nor a betrayer. I have a view that is different to theirs, and I may have reason for it to be different. It may be because of my sense of betrayal, or my sense of people having sent me, assisted me, talked to me, came with me part of the way, and then betrayed me. They washed their hands of people. They shout at Sinn Féin so that their constituency might see it. The cry might be "We beat them to death with DUP manifestos". Who are they kidding? They talk about the seriousness of what faces this country.
The reality is we have come a long way. The ceasefires may not be perfect, but they are in place. Many make use of television or other media to criticise those who take serious risks, and all of that as the words "traitor" and "betrayer" are ringing in the ears of those with whom they have to work. I ask them to think very carefully about who they describe as being a traitor or betrayer. They should think very carefully when I lay my life on the line, which I am prepared and happy to do — not for the first time, I might add — for my country, and I do so in the belief that we can make a difference. Not that it will stay the same. I do not ever want it to stay the same, and if it were wonderful it would not be good enough — it would have to be better.
I believe and hope that that is the nature of politics. It is supposed to be made better by politicians. The louder the complaining, the more I concentrate on the paramilitary groups, the drug gangs, the house-breaking gangs — all the difficulties in this society, such as the massive number of one-parent families, the near meltdown of the agricultural economy, the situation where Christians make a virtue of hatred and where politicians have no art, rather than making politics the art of the possible. I wonder if I am alone in wanting it to be different. Am I alone in wanting it to change?
We have come a long, long way. There have been changes, even in the ideology, that people may not have recognised because they cannot see the wood for the trees. For them to identify the shifts or changes or schisms that exist between the ideology and the political reality of SinnFéin would be an admission that perhaps there is hope, and they would not want there to be hope.
They walk past Carson, under Britannia; they sit in this House talking; they tore up the "green book", but not many of them took the trouble to read it until recently, when they got elected and got the opportunity to let on that they had read it. They have no concept of the changes that can take place, of the will of the people, the desire of the people to live in peace.
I understand. Contrary to popular opinion, I do not live in "leafy land"; I have one small Housing Executive house, and I live in a solidly Loyalist housing estate. I have not had anybody shouting abuse at me. I wonder why.

A Member: I wonder why.

Mr David Ervine: I wonder why. Could it be that they are all so fearful for the future of society that they are not telling me? They could always hide behind hedges and bushes, but they do not. And that tells me something: they are searching for, lusting after, some kind of better opportunity for the future.
All of us may be frightened. As we are in uncharted waters, why would we not be? No matter what tributary you face in life, the fear of getting it wrong is natural — of course it is — but you will never make anything or do anything unless you examine and explore the opportunities for the future.
That is what we did in Castle Buildings. But there were those who would not even explore the opportunities for the future. Listen to the opportunities for the future and then retreat if you will. But they would not even listen. And they did not listen because the fiefdom might be challenged, the fiefdom that has them shouting and screaming at Sinn Féin only for the television.
What they are really trying to do is upset the Ulster Unionists and turn themselves into the leaders of Unionism. Some of them want to be that; others are "cul-de-sac" politicians. I repeat what I said in October: there are two forms of "cul-de-sac" politicians — those who cannot and will not come out of the "cul-de-sac" and those who live in a "cul-de-sac" and are frightened that somebody is looking through the venetian blinds and saying "That is the one who let GerryAdams into government." That is the fear — the fear for themselves. They cannot be afraid for their children or grandchildren or they would be thinking about the future; they would have vision.
If we do not test SinnFéin and the Provos, we will never know. We will have consigned this territory that we all profess to love to constant, bitter and brutal feuding until somebody with wisdom comes along and does something different. When the brutality has begun and we have begun to venerate the victims, we will be unable to stop the war. I have heard that from many people here; I have walked behind the coffins; I have had family members killed, and, indeed, there have been attempts on my own life. If all we had done was venerate the victims, how would we have ended the Second World War? How would we have gone on to have relationships with people that fought with my father, for instance? How often has it been said that soldiers fight only to end wars, not to perpetuate them? A battle or a conflagration must end or the value in that conflagration only exists in having it.
There is a genuine opportunity to begin to use the process that we put together in Castle Buildings to deliver— to deliver the end of punishment beatings, to deliver decommissioning, to deliver accountable democracy, to deliver all of the things that every constituency signed up to, or it is not worth the paper it is written on.
But it is about more than that; it is about healing relationships, not only the fractured relationships between the North and the South and between east and west, but also the fractured relationships that have borders at the end of every street in some constituencies.
All that has to be begun, and if we cannot or are not prepared to set an example but are prepared only to chide and cough and play games, we will not get off first base.
Those with large egos who defecate from a great height will undoubtedly tell us that vision which is not founded in their sense of democracy is not vision at all. If our troubles were a couple of days old we could begin the process of putting the wrongs right. We could say that one thing happened as a reaction to another and attempt to put it right and seek apologies. But we have had 30 years of this, and if we play the game of constantly harking back — today we were as far back as 1967 — there will be no future, and those who advocated no and who want collapse at every turn have their part to play.

Prof Monica McWilliams: On the way here this morning I passed Stormont Presbyterian Church, which I think has been sending us subconscious messages over the past few months as we drive to the Assembly. This morning the message said "God give me patience ... but hurry". That message is truly meant for Members. We have waited long enough for this debate, and it is time that we made a determination to set up the Government Departments, the North/South bodies, the bodies for agreements between these islands, the British-Irish Council and the Civic Forum.
It is time that we gave the people of Northern Ireland some encouragement by doing what they said they wanted us to do in the referendum. The process has become stagnant. We are in a vacuum, and every time that happens it is the most vulnerable time in our society. The people who live at the interfaces of our communities face the outcome of that vacuum. Day by day, they are terrified that we will not reach a decision that will eventually bring peace to NorthernIreland.
We have that responsibility, and it is time that we implemented the agreement and moved to this next phase. It is the next step. Members have said that this is an important day. I hope that as we cast our votes in favour of accepting the report we realise the importance of moving to the next stage. We still have irreconcilable differences that are repeated over and over again in the media, which concentrate only on the fears of politicians, and leave no time for what DavidErvine has rightly called space for hope.
If that is all that we are sending out, day by day, it is little wonder that people are saying that if the referendum on the agreement was to be rerun, they might be tempted to vote no. All that we have fed them is a diet of what people are against. I know from life and from working on committees and organisations and in education, that it is easy to be against and much more difficult to be for.
RevIanPaisley spoke about the floodwaters that are running, but it is much better to irrigate land than to see it in a drought. The Member for the United Unionist Assembly Party asked the Ulster Unionists about their legacy, which he said would be dreadful. My view is that it is the only one. It is the legacy of consensus and of agreement, the promise that we will never again do to each other what was done in this country over the past 30years. That is the legacy which I promise my children and their children, and the children of all those in the Chamber. That is the only way forward.
I want decommissioning — not because it is being forced, but because it is the honourable thing to do when we move out of war and towards peace. It is the only thing to do. However, the agreement speaks to other forms of arms being taken out of this country. I read over the weekend that absolutely nothing will be done about firearms regulations or small arms. I want all arms, large and small, the arms that kill people, to be controlled. The only arms I want are those that I use to write. It is time for reality to set in and for us to agree that that is the only way forward.
We must set up that Executive. I support the G7 group. All Members may not agree with them, but at least they have put forward suggestions — for example, rather than just saying "leave them to do it", they have suggested that there be decommissioning at the same time as the setting up of an Executive. It is one suggestion among many, and who are we to say that they should not make those suggestions?
We have a great deal of concern about some of the issues in this report, but in the spirit of compromise and consensus we are agreed that this is the report that is going to stand up.
Yes, I agree with the RevDrIanPaisley that there may be room for more victims’ organisations to be represented on the Civic Forum. Many people have been affected by the troubles, and it is my belief that many of them will be represented on the Forum. However, if victims are going to get lost in the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate), then I have serious concerns.
At present, victims come under AdamIngram’s portfolio. I want to make it clear that the Assembly is going to take this issue seriously. The concern of the victims’ organisations that I have spoken to is not that all of them should be represented on the Civic Forum but that they will be able to secure core funding for the future. The ones that I have visited are simply spending project money, and when that runs out they are finished. As we move from conflict into peace these organisations start to come forward as the frozen watchfulness that they had during the years of conflict begins to melt. Assembly Members should ensure that they get the resources they deserve.

Mr Alban Maginness: Does the Member agree that DrPaisley and his party should have raised their concerns during the Civic Forum discussions rather than boycotting them?

Prof Monica McWilliams: I agree. In fact, I note that in the DUP amendment —

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrInitial PresidingOfficer. Is it in order for a Member to mislead the House? The DUP met MrMallon — one of MrMaginness’s bosses — and MrTrimble and discussed the matter fully. We also left them a paper on it. Now MrMaginness is trying to malign the party by saying that it should have raised its concerns during the Civic Forum discussions.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Let me address this very issue. The amendment makes a humorous point when it says that the Civic Forum should be "merely consultative". One consults and addresses issues — one does not merely consult. I noted that PeterRobinson, the Member for East Belfast, said that he drew up this amendment rather quickly. The wording does indeed suggest that it was drawn up very quickly as it also contains the words "properly appointing".
The Civic Forum will not be appointing anyone. It will set up sectors, sub-sectors and, if required, sub-sub-sectors to bring people into the Civic Forum, from grass roots community activists to the top people in consortiums. I do not know if a person can be improperly appointed, but putting the word "properly" in front of appointed leaves a great deal of room. I hope that MrRobinson’s party will address this wording when it discusses the Civic Forum.
The amendment also says "merely consultative". Many of MrRobinson’s Colleagues and others have argued for serious consultation. Given the response to the Member for North Belfast it would appear that these Members were consulted about the Civic Forum and responded to the consultation by putting forward a paper. Consultation should not have the word "merely" in front of it. Consultation is a serious matter and one should take on board the points that are made as a result of it. The adjectives put in the amendment have done a great disservice to the Democratic Unionist Party. Perhaps it now recognises that the CivicForum will be established and will encourage members of civic society to put their names forward.
I am also concerned that women’s issues, which are to be in the First and Deputy First Ministers’ office, will be buried there. Looking at the list that is attached to that office, one begins to ask seriously how any two people will ever be able to do the work that is spelled out in that report. I hope that if junior Ministers are to be appointed — and we still have had no serious consultation on that issue — a number of them will be given these responsibilities to take forward.
Let me address the issue of the Civic Forum. It is a good day for the Women’s Coalition. We were the party responsible for putting this forward as an idea in the negotiations. It is true that we almost lost it; there were brackets around the Civic Forum, but we negotiated like everybody else and compromised on its final drafting. But it is there, to our great delight.
Civic society has been strengthened over the years by the number of people who were prepared to get out and become the doers and not just the talkers. It is that strength between and within communities that I would like to address. It is an inclusive body. It will address not just the issues of Nationalism and Unionism but the strengths across all sectors, and most particularly in the community and voluntary sector.

Mr Robert McCartney: Contrary to what MonicaMcWilliams has said, it is not easy to be against purse and patronage of two Governments plus the United States, or against UTV and the BBC, to say nothing of ‘The Irish News’, the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ and the ‘News Letter’, all of whom weighed in very heavily in favour of the matters that MonicaMcWilliams supports.
The only definitive statement of the Government’s policy strategy for Northern Ireland is entitled ‘Towards a United Ireland’. The present Secretary of State was the co-author of that document, which contains all the essential elements of the Belfast Agreement. Yet Unionists, by giving cross-community support to this determination, will be putting their future and that of the Union in her pro-Nationalist hands. By approving this determination, Unionists will, in effect, throw away the one element of positive control over the process that they can now exercise. They will have placed themselves and the Union at the mercy of a Secretary of State who is totally unsympathetic to their interests.
Once this determination is approved, the Secretary of State can, by Standing Order, put the d’Hondt formula into operation when she chooses. When she does, SinnFéin will be entitled, as of right, to its appointed places in government, first in shadow and then in substantive form. Over that situation, pro-Union parties will no longer have any control whatever. Such trust in the Minister, in the wake of a string of broken pledges, indicates a faith and a child-like trust that beggars belief.
With the control of the timing of the d’Hondt operation, the Government will have space to arrange the final and fatal fudge on decommissioning. GendeChastelain is now claimed by DrMowlam and MessrsHume and Mallon to have a pivotal role on this issue. That is a false claim, and it was reiterated today by MrFarren. Gen de Chastelain is charged under the agreement merely with monitoring, reviewing and verifying progress on decommissioning.
MrFarren should read the agreement. The fudge or fig leaf will require a new and unauthorised political role for the general. He will be pressurised to provide a programme for decommissioning commencing at some time after SinnFéin has been seated. Unionists will be fobbed off with a promise of a review if SinnFéin/IRA do not meet the required timetable. This arrangement has already been kited by such as DrMauriceHayes in yesterday’s ‘Sunday Independent’, and the ground is being prepared by SirGeorgeQuigley and others of G7. The scheme would be worthless because there is no hope of the IRA decommissioning anything, and certainly not before the RUC has been demoralised and disarmed.
Many informed people consider that the Government, under the guise of implementing measures appropriate to and compatible with a normal peaceful society, are preparing to remove all personal security weapons from those to whom they have been issued as a protection against terrorist attack.
This is designed to meet the IRA’s requirement for what it calls demilitarisation. The Government will suggest it as a trade-off for decommissioning, and the Minister of State, MrAdamIngram, will tell MrTrimble and MrKenMaginnis that he does not usually discuss the detail of such matters with the Opposition. Informed people realise that the Government, after each concession, such as the continuing prisoner releases, will tell us that we have no alternative, as failure to accede to each new demand from the terrorists would bring the entire process to an end and send the IRA back to war.
In the past, the IRA threatened us with violence if we did not do what it wanted. Now the Government threaten us with violence by proxy. The reason is that there is no sacrifice that Unionists will not be asked to make in order to protect the lives of the first-class citizens and the economic targets on the mainland.
Are we so naïve, so trusting and so blind that we do not realise that once Sinn Féin has taken its seats in government, it will never be put out as long as there is a threat of a renewal of terrorism on the mainland? This process has always been driven, and will continue to be driven, inexorably by terror and by the threat of terror until Sinn Féin/IRA achieves its political objectives. Those who think otherwise are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The Ulster Unionist Party has said that it will refuse its seats in government if SinnFéin takes its seats without decommissioning. This could only be compared to the defenders of a city throwing their weapons over the walls to the besiegers before announcing that, if the besiegers did not go away, they would march out and abandon the city to them.
The Assembly and any devolved government that it may produce under the terms of the Belfast Agreement are poor enough instruments for defending the Union, but they may turn out to be as much as we are ever likely to get in terms of local democracy. However, to throw it all away now, after giving everything else away and discarding all one’s cards, would be to commit political suicide. Unionists should realise that the tide of democratic opinion — here, in Britain and especially in the Republic of Ireland — has turned in their favour. There is an increasing awareness that without decommissioning democracy is dead and that no institution of government worthy of the description "democratic" can exist and, at the same time, include a minority that attempts to determine policy by using the threat of violence from a private army.
The case for excluding SinnFéin from government until the IRA decommissions has never been stronger. Now is the time to take advantage of that growth in public support and to refuse to approve this determination until such time as substantial decommissioning has begun. One way of dealing with this problem, so far as the Ulster Unionists are concerned, is to vote for the first motion — the one on the report — put it on the table and say "that is what we voted for and what we are willing to agree", but to withhold support from the second motion, which would transform acceptance of the report into a determination that would enable the Secretary of State to use the d’Hondt system whenever she wished.
Thus the Ulster Unionist Party would have fulfilled all its commitments. It would be able to say that it had agreed to the bodies, to the Ministries and to the functions contained in the report while, at the same time, saying that it refused to vote for the determination until such time as substantial decommissioning had begun and had been carried out. Thus the Ulster Unionist Party could disarm its critics: it could not be accused of not being constructive, and it could not be accused of placing obstacles in the way of progress.
A clear marker would have been put down: there cannot be a determination until Sinn Féin/IRA shows its determination to enter fully and properly into the democratic process.
I say this to Members: "Do not place your future, the future of your children and that of the Union in the hands of this particular Secretary of State, but declare that without decommissioning there will be no determination." Such a decision is the last card within their control, and now is the time for the Ulster Unionist Party to play it. Without decommissioning, democracy is indeed dead, and the approval of this determination will enable the Government, and their allies, to pressurise the Unionist parties into Government without a single gun or a single ounce of Semtex ever being decommissioned. Members are simply storing up further pressure for the day when they will have to make a decision on whether they remain in an executive or go. I ask them, I implore them, to vote against the motion approving the determination.

Mr Sam Foster: The Ulster Unionist position is quite clear: we will not be sitting in ministerial positions unless there is decommissioning. That is an absolute, and there is no getting away from it. I support this motion. I support my party leader, and I compliment him on his conviction, his bravery and his knowledge in this matter.
Reference has been made to the Civic Forum. I want Members to know that the DUP and Sinn Féin are very much agreed on the Civic Forum and on other issues — in case people have the wrong impression. Earlier, MrPeterRobinson, in his nauseating, sanctimonious way, referred to a denial of freedom of speech. I wonder what he has to say about the attempt to deny freedom of speech in Fivemiletown a fortnight ago tonight, when there were despicable scenes aimed at stopping Unionist folk from going to a party meeting. I was kicked, jostled and subjected to taunts, scorn and gibing — that is what the DUP calls free speech.
I want this state to prosper, but it can only be built upon foundations of a moral character. Such character is the principal element of its strength and the only guarantee of its permanence and prosperity. I do not want Government by stampede — not by any means. The situation must be appropriate, and at present it is not. The politicians of our time could be characterised by their vain attempts to change the world and by their inability to change themselves. Evidence of that manifests itself in the Assembly today.
This Assembly would almost be ready to begin to govern Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but for one big, vital issue — decommissioning. Republicanism has reneged on the Belfast Agreement; it has failed to deliver on getting rid of arms and explosives; it has not honoured the agreement. Therein is the denial of democracy, and SinnFéin — the front for terrorism — has failed, and failed miserably. I question whether it has ever really tried.
The Assembly cannot govern with credibility if political parties, from wherever, ignore the fact that there are weapons of war and destruction out there in the undergrowth. The potential for another Omagh, another Enniskillen and all the other dastardly acts of evil is still very real. If there is honesty, if there is integrity, let it show itself now.
The use of the words "inextricably linked to the IRA" is, in my opinion, wrong because it suggests that Sinn Féin is different from the IRA. One has to ask "Is it?" How often have Members of this Assembly, and others, been seen at the funerals of terrorists? Did not MrGerryAdams act as pall-bearer at the funeral of the Shankill bomber who, just two days before, had murdered eight people in that dastardly act of aggression? Did not MrFrancieMolloy state "We can go back to what we do best"? Was that a threat or an act of bravado to a receptive audience?
Are the leader of SinnFéin and his associates not fooling some? Are they bluffing terrorist associates, or are they bluffing society? It seems they want to be part of both. They cannot be.
The IRA/Sinn Féin group must prove itself to society and not vice versa. They can make or break the benefits we seek from government in NorthernIreland. Do we wish to accept that they, without any sign of conscience, compassion or concern, once again associate themselves with those who have bloodied this land by their acts of terror? They expect this Assembly to ignore the fact that loved ones, dear ones, were torn to shreds. There have been broken hearts and broken limbs, and families have been scarred for the rest of their lives by base deeds. Decommissioning would be an act of trust, an act of faith and an earnest of an intent never again to sink to the depths of the past 30years of evil. We are not getting that action or trust.
Not only the Ulster Unionist Party should be emphasising this requirement of the IRA and SinnFéin. Every party should seek it rather than evade it or turn a blind eye to the IRA/Sinn Féin movement, which can wreck the Assembly.
If IRA/Sinn Féin fails to deliver, the rest of us should agree, without any compunction, to go on without them. They will then have debarred themselves, and the world should be made fully aware of their deceit. It was destruction physically over the years, and now it is destruction politically by using democracy to deny and destroy democracy. MrsMaryHarney, the TD in the South, has stated
"There is no distinction between the IRA’s political wing, Sinn Féin and the IRA, and now is the time for them to decommission."
‘The Irish News’ recently referred to attacks on people in Nationalist areas of Belfast. Of the appalling death of MrAndrewKearney it says
"All the attacks were plainly in breach of both the IRA ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement. They state these punishment attacks must be brought to an immediate end yet Sinn Féin still continues to seek Executive positions."
SinnFéin and the IRA are holding this country to ransom. They inhibit progress and stifle trust, and for more than 30 years they have denied people the benefits of good citizenship. The whole world must now be made aware of the deceit and falsehood of SinnFéin. If there were decommissioning, a Government would be in action here. That is as plain as day. They should move out of the darkness of evil into the light of democracy. We seek that, but SinnFéin deny it to the people. It and any other terrorist-associated grouping cannot be allowed or excused such base behaviour.
The Ulster Unionist Party wishes to set up the institutions that are envisaged in the agreement. We need to tackle the mass of urgent social and economic issues. Action on those is vital to the future welfare of our people.
I close with a sentence that Members should ponder. Show me the person who does not want his gun registered, and I will show you a person who should not have a gun.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I wish to speak in support of section5 of the report relating to the consultative Civic Forum. I was the SDLP representative on the study group, and I should like to thank the representatives of the other five parties for their commitment towards producing that report. No party got everything it wanted, but the proposals in Section5 are an acceptable compromise.
I regret that two parties, the Democratic Unionist Party and the then United Kingdom Unionist Party excluded themselves from the study group. The proposals for a consultative Civic Forum are an indispensable and integral part of the GoodFriday Agreement. The SDLP is committed to implementing all aspects of the agreement. We made many specific proposals, some of which are incorporated in Section5 and some of which are not.
The overall principle, which I am glad to see is implicitly acknowledged, is that the Assembly is free-standing. There are several forms of democracy, the most important of which is representative democracy whereby the electorate choose a relatively small number of people to take decisions on their behalf. By the standards of western democracy, we have a high rate of electoral participation. About 70% of the electorate voted in the Assembly election. That is comparable to the turnout in a general election. It is certainly a lot higher than in the US Congressional elections of last October where the turnout was 33%.
The Civic Forum can broaden and deepen the political and public process by bringing a rich diversity of viewpoints to discussion about matters of public policy. Indeed, it could foster a healthy and creative relationship with the Assembly.
Another principle held by the SDLP is that the Civic Forum must be as broadly based and inclusive as possible. Representation and selection are vital issues, and we want the net to be cast as widely as possible in order to allow the broadest possible representation. People will be nominated by various bodies, and they will, I believe and hope, not only have the confidence of their nominating bodies but the breadth of vision to empathise with the broader needs of society, as well. The process of selection must be gender-proofed, ensure an equitable geographic spread and be broadly balanced. We do not just want to see the great and the good, who, in fairness, have contributed a lot to our society over the past 30years. We now have an opportunity to include the marginalised and some fresh faces.
The make-up of the Civic Forum is not set in stone. The SDLP would have preferred, for example, that the Chairperson be selected from within the Civic Forum’s membership rather than an appointee. Also, there are groups that are not mentioned in the report who should have the right to nominate people, such as the Credit Unions. The fact that a group’s name is not mentioned does not preclude it from making negotiations.
The Civic Forum must be effective and it must start working as soon as possible on a number of subjects, such as social exclusion, long-term unemployment, selection in education, sectarianism in our society and civics education in our schools. Discussion of these thorny and endemic problems in the Civic Forum would allow a consensus on the way forward to build up before an issue made its way on to the Floor of the Assembly.
The Civic Forum will not necessarily depoliticise these problems, but it could ensure more rational and informed discussion among the parties. Democracy in all its forms has had a difficult time here for generations. It has been tested almost to the point of destruction by those who have resorted to violence. We have been given the chance for a new beginning. The proposals for a Civic Forum give us a chance to underpin our new start for democracy, and I hope to God that we do not waste that chance. If we do, what are the alternatives?
On behalf of the SDLP, I support this report.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, Initial Presiding Officer.
I, along with my colleagues in SinnFéin, will be supporting this report by DavidTrimble and SeamusMallon. We have expressed, through our party Leader, our reservations about the report and about the way in which it was brought together. That said, this is an important day, and when the vote is taken to determine this report, that vote will be crucial, particularly for those people who voted in the referendum.
If things go according to plan, there is no reason for the shadow executive’s not being appointed in two weeks’ time after the triggering of the d’Hondt mechanism by MoMowlam and by yourself, MrInitial Presiding Officer. There is no reason for devolution’s not being triggered on 10March by the British and Irish Governments — no reason at all in this wide world. Yet we continually hear a reason for this not taking place. We are hearing a grievous re-interpretation of this issue all the time, particularly from the DUP Benches and, somewhat more disappointingly, from the Ulster Unionist Benches.
SinnFéin has been working at the peace process for the greater part of this decade. I know that many people do not like it and find it very difficult to face up to it. We have worked hard, assiduously even, and we have worked with people like JohnHume and AlbertReynolds. Over the course of that period we have built up a relationship with people like TonyBlair, BertieAhern, AlbertReynolds and with the President of the United States. All of them have stated, time and time again, that they believe in the SinnFéin leadership, that they believe we are serious about this process and that they believe that we can be trusted to press forward with a process which is designed to end conflict, to bring about justice, to bring about equality and to bring about a peaceful future for ourselves, our families and our children. For us that is what the process is all about.
We hear Unionist representatives saying that they are for decommissioning but that perhaps SinnFéin is not. Some go further and say that SinnFéin is opposed to it. All our efforts over the greater part of this decade, I contend, have shown — and we have proved this to the highest people in the highest places in this world — that we, as well as wanting to bring about an end to conflict, injustice, inequality, discrimination and domination, want to bring about the removal of all guns from Irish politics. It is not true that the Ulster Unionists and SinnFéin are generally divided on this issue. The difficulty comes when the Unionists wrongly, as DavidTrimble admitted in a recent debate in this House, interpret the Good Friday Agreement as stating that there is a precondition to SinnFéin’s participation in an executive. There is not, and we all know it.
What did the Good Friday Agreement do about this issue? It made decommissioning or the removal of weapons from Irish politics the responsibility of us all, at least of all those who signed up to that agreement. It is the responsibility of us all. We in SinnFéin are not going to take on our shoulders sole responsibility for resolving this issue. I think that both Governments are listening to the argument that the key phrase in the agreement is that responsibility for this lies with all the participants.
I have met GendeChastelain on many occasions. I was glad to see many of the other parties going to meet him last week because up until then I had met with the general more than the other parties put together. I have told GendeChastelain that there is a responsibility to be shared and that SinnFéin is not going to accept responsibility for this alone.
The Ulster Unionists talk about decommissioning as if its taking place is proof of a party’s or parties’ commitment to peace and democracy. It is no such thing. It does not prove that at all, and the LVF’s decommissioning clearly shows that. I know that this is a difficult process for Unionists, but it is also a difficult process for Republicans.
One of the big difficulties, even the great sadness, of this process has been the lack of connection between the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin. I do not know RoyBeggsJnr; I do not know PaulineArmitage; I do not know PeterWeir. They never gave me the chance to get to know them. That is their right, but is it how a peace process should work? Most people in the international community would be shocked to know that if I were to meet DavidTrimble walking along a corridor here today he would not even say "Hello". Is that how a peace process should work?
Over the weekend I spoke on the telephone to a very senior businessman who is a Unionist and a supporter of the Ulster Unionist Party. He told me that he was shocked to discover that the last time DavidTrimble met with GerryAdams was 18December of last year — two months ago. Is that how a peace process should work? I think not.
There needs to be a real engagement between the Ulster Unionist Party and ourselves. They have hurts. They see us as people with a lot of baggage. I understand all of that. We have hurt them, but they must also look at it from our perspective. The people that we represent have been hurt. They were hurt on "bloody Sunday"; they were hurt by the introduction of internment; they were hurt by gerrymandering; they were hurt by discrimination; they were hurt by the killing of PatFinucane; they were hurt by the fact that, as we can now prove, elements within British military intelligence, involved with Loyalist death squads, were involved in the killing of our people — probably by the hundred, the PatFinucane case being only the tip of the iceberg.
StephenLeach, one of the architects of decommissioning, has been in the UnitedStates in the last two weeks, and he told people he met that SinnFéin would not get positions on an Executive unless — these are his exact words —
"there is an actual surrender of weapons by the IRA."
This is Stephen Leach, the man who thought up this issue and gave it to JohnMajor in order to prevent negotiations taking place. If JohnMajor had won the 1997 generalelection none of us would have been standing here today. We are now facing a situation where the Ulster Unionist Party is threatening to use this issue against SinnFéin’s participation in the Executive, using the same veto. I hope the British Prime Minister will not allow that to happen, because behind all of this, ongoing attacks are still being carried out by the Orange Volunteers and the Red Hand Defenders.
I have here a component part of a hand grenade which was thrown in my constituency in recent weeks. I believe it is one of those hand grenades imported into the North of Ireland in the last 10years by BrianNelson with the assistance of British military intelligence. These were the weapons that were divided between the UVF, the UDA and the Ulster Resistance. We heard "Peter the Great (the Clontibret raider)" and the "Grand Old Duke of Paisley" — who climbed up many a hillside — claiming this morning that they had absolutely nothing to do with all of this.

Lord Alderdice: I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The point I am making is that the agreement is clear. In the next four weeks there will be a shadow Executive, and if there is any justice whatsoever in this process, we will on 10March see a full-blown Executive with Sinn Féin Ministers in it.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, the security implications of the device brought in to the Chamber will not have escaped your notice. I am sure you will investigate that.
I wish to commence with a brief reference to the consultative Civic Forum and the intention to have the same.
Reference was made to what might be described as our inactivity in coming forward with proposals regarding the Civic Forum, and there are those who would like to try to denigrate our position in relation to that by saying that we are totally and utterly opposed to the formation of a Civic Forum. They obviously have not read the amendment. We would not have had and do not have today any difficulty whatsoever in putting forward constructive proposals for that forum, but we are not going to sit down with the representatives of armed terror, be they called Sinn Féin/IRA or IRA/Sinn Féin — and I know there is a feeling out there in the community about which they should be called. We will not be participating in that sense.

Mr Alban Maginness: Does the Member agree that the DUP boycotted the study group that was concerned with detailed proposals for the Civic Forum and that the DUP, by so boycotting, was not in a position to address the issues which it purports to address in the Chamber today?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I do not know whether MrMaginness is as conversant with ordinary English as he was with the French-English of a recent television programme, but we made a full, written submission about the Civic Forum, and we discussed it in bilaterals. How he can see that as total opposition on our part to the Civic Forum is something that I cannot understand, so I will leave it for others to work out.
The Civic Forum is to be composed in a particular way, and others have outlined the problem — indeed, the many problems — arising from allocating so many positions to the voluntary and community groups, and from allowing the First and Deputy First Ministers to appoint six people and so on. There is no place for any formal local government involvement, yet that could have been considered.
Round-table consultations with six of the Assembly parties established this report, but there is no reference to the fact that consultations are supposed to take place on a whole range of matters. Two weeks ago we were having a serious debate here.
Mr Interim Presiding Officer, you were absent because of the subject matter of that debate. There were those — and they are to be found in almost all the groups that are mentioned under paragraph 5(1) — who opposed my party’s motion of no confidence in you, thereby implying they had every confidence in you. Yet today we are told that consultations have been going on for a number of days and that it would not be expedient to proceed. We will deal with that in the coming days and the sleaze that goes on behind closed doors will no doubt be revealed.
The more substantial part of my comments relates to what will undoubtedly be established, and that is the Executive. We could dwell on, as I know some people have, promises made. I could refer to advertisements at the time of the referendum, to assurances given, and to adverts that cost tens of thousands of pounds, and I could well cause some embarrassment if I were to do that. There were Ulster Unionist voices that said "Yes for the Union." I could cause acute embarrassment, but I do not know that that would do any good.
I do not know that that would bring us any further forward because my feeling is that, for the large part, minds have been made up; and people are prepared to live with the consequences of their actions. That is the feeling that I get. We are undertaking a debate today which will result in a vote that will lead to the setting up of a Government: a 10-person Executive, two members of which — and that is one fifth of the Government — are inextricably linked to a terror machine. Whether they are called SinnFéin/IRA or IRA/SinnFéin I care not.
They will be part and parcel of the Executive that will come about because some token action will occur which will allow the Executive to be formed while allowing Mr Trimble to say that decommissioning has started. Whether it is GendeChastelain or MoMowlam in conjunction with BertieAhern, a token gesture will be made, and the Executive will be formed.
My main question is this: what then for Unionism? What do we do then? I have taken it as read that the vote will be carried today. From all the speeches and contributions I detect no feeling of regret. In spite of all that has happened and all the shifts that we have detected in opinion polls — even last week, when the Unionist’s community’s views were seen to harden — there are still those who are determined, for whatever reason, to press ahead. The self-destruct button must be pressed, and they are determined to do it.
After this vote, and for the foreseeable future, there will be three elements of Unionism. First, the defeatist section of Unionism, who, for whatever reason, has decided that it cannot change anything, that the combination of SinnFéin/IRA, the SDLP, the British Government, the Irish Government, the Irish Americans and the European Union cannot be defeated. People in that section have thrown in the towel and said "Let’s make the best of it." That is the defeatist element of Unionism. They have cut their cloth, and there is no going back after this vote. I am not throwing my lot in with them, nor will I ever do so.
The second element of Unionism contains the quitters or those who opt out. I sympathise with some of them because, understandably, they feel that they can no longer participate in politics. They have decided that they are going to quit political involvement or they have already quit, and we see that from the lower turnout from Unionist communities in the east of the Province. I am not in the lobby of those who have decided that there is no point in getting involved because the process is going ahead.
The third element contains those of us who are realists. We know what is going on. We see the reality of what is happening, and we have determined to do something about it, irrespective of our party label — whether we be DUP, Ulster Unionist, UK Unionist, United Unionist, Northern Ireland Unionist, or part of the mass of Unionists who simply see the realpolitik in this building and outside and want a change. They have said "We do not like what we see. We do not want the status quo."
I have said here many times and outside the Chamber a thousand times that we do not want the status quo. Why? Because the status quo has brought us to where we are today. We want a dynamic, determined, confident, assertive Unionism, whatever its label, whatever party we belong to. We want that to enable us to bring about change for our people and for the Nationalist community so that together we can go towards the future and put the past behind us.

Mr Peter Weir: I rise today not with any sense of pleasure but with a very heavy heart. When looking at this report and the two motions that flow from it, I am reminded very much of the proverbial curate’s egg.
I will turn briefly to the part of the report which I find quite reasonable. If we are to put up with the necessary nonsense of a Civic Forum, the proposals are quite reasonable, though not ideal. Therefore, I have no reason to object to item 4 on the Order Paper and will be supporting it.
However, anyone who knows about the substance of a curate’s egg, knows that it has good parts and bad parts. The whole point of a curate’s egg is that the bad parts make the whole egg rotten — which brings me to the business motion. I will be opposing that motion today and supporting the DUP amendment. I will be doing so because I believe that it is a dangerous motion — and I am not referring here to the number of Government Departments, though my preference would be for six or seven Departments only.
There are criticisms that can be levelled at the make-up of those Departments that have been suggested. They may not create the best administrative system for Northern Ireland, but in themselves they are not dangerous to the Union. What is profoundly dangerous in passing this motion and in making the determination today is that it will place Sinn Féin/IRA closer to the heart of Government and remove one of the most vital barriers between it and executive power.
In days of yore in ancient Rome, the great fear of the citizens was that the citadel would be invaded from outside by barbarians. The phrase often used was that the barbarians "rapped the gate". Today we find ourselves defending the citadel of democracy in a not dissimilar position. I will not compare any of the parties opposite to barbarians, because, given some of the vicious things that have gone on in Northern Ireland, to do so would be to insult barbarians. [Interruption]
Nevertheless, in defending the citadel of democracy at this vital moment the effect of passing the determination will be to remove the guard that is there for the Assembly. Take it away, and you put at the gate, as the barrier between Sinn Féin’s getting into government and its being kept out, the Secretary of State. She will be the guardian, and I do not have faith in her to defend our democracy. The only remaining option for citizens faced with being overrun by barbarians is to destroy the citadel itself — and that is not a good strategy for Unionists.
I do not, here today, question the sincerity of my Colleagues who will presumably vote in favour of this. I do not question either their integrity or their motives — I know that they are of the highest level. What I do question is their judgement on these tactics. What is to be gained by passing this determination?
It has been said that this determination has to be passed to enable the various administrative acts to go ahead in preparation for devolution. That is not the case. Section 2.4 of the report indicates that the administrative work in setting up the Departments has already started. The number of Departments was confirmed by the Privy Council on 10February, and those Departments will come into effect on the day appointed for devolution. Thus the necessary administrative work will not be affected by whether this business motion is passed or not. We are correctly informed that before devolution can occur, there has to be some form of determination. I do not doubt that.
As indicated by MrFoster earlier, the circumstances are not appropriate at present for setting up an executive. Surely we should wait until the circumstances are appropriate before we formally pass any determination. If the circumstances were appropriate, we would be in a position to pass a determination within a matter of days. It strikes me that to pass it at this time would be foolish.
We have been told that the stopgap measure offers an opportunity for a review of the whole process. We have been told by the Taoiseach — and we have no reason to doubt the Taoiseach’s word because he is a man who is consistent — that if we reach a review stage, nothing can really change. We have also been told this by Members opposite, particularly those on the SDLPBenches, and to be fair to them they have always been completely straight on this issue. We are going to vote on the agreement, and this is what is going to go through.
In any event, if we enter into that review having made the determination, we will be throwing away one of the Assembly’s strongest cards — the final veto over the establishment of an executive, when that is by no means necessary. We will be handing over to the Secretary of State who will, via the Standing Orders, have complete control over its establishment and the timing of its establishment.
If we take the course of action that is proposed in the DUP amendment and reject the determination, we would not be passing any judgement on the nature of the Departments. All the preparatory work can go ahead so that were we to reach the situation in which we were ready for devolution, that could happen.
We would be sending a very clear message to the Government that the Assembly will not tolerate terrorists in government under any circumstances. We would be sending a clear message that no one could misunderstand.
In any form of politics there are times when the dictates of one’s party conflict with matters that one believes to be vital to the good governance of the country. This is one such occasion, and in all conscience I will vote against the determination because it is entirely inappropriate.
Members should note that however things go between now and March or in the future, this will be the last opportunity for individual Assembly Members to voice their concern on this issue. Once the motion is passed, individual Assembly Members will not have that opportunity again.
My good friend DrBirnie — whether he will want to claim that description is another matter; if I am going down perhaps I can take him with me — quoted StanleyBaldwin, who said that power without responsibility was the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. At that time there was another quote of which I do not know the source, and I fear that it will come into play if we accept the motion. We will be left with responsibility without power, which has been the prerogative of the eunuch throughout the ages. I urge Members not to be the eunuch but to take a stand by voting no to the motion and supporting the amendment.

Mr John Dallat: The report sets out the blueprint for the future of NorthernIreland and its relationship with its neighbours. It is the culmination of months, indeed years, of hard work, and I pay tribute to those Members who worked hard to bring us to this stage in the political process.
It is my wish and without doubt the desire of the vast majority of people of both traditions that this day will mark a new beginning, a new style of politics and a new kind of democracy. Not everyone has welcomed the report with open hands. Some are apprehensive and a few are openly hostile, but we must be prepared for that, because politics should be about taking risks, meeting challenges and overcoming difficulties. It is certainly not about running away or about coming here with a sound bite for the media, and nothing more. [Interruption] I remind DUP Members that when they were speaking I gave them the courtesy of silence. I hope that Mr Robinson hears me. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order.

Mr John Dallat: Change does not come easy to many people. We have a long history of resisting change, not only in politics, but in many aspects of our daily lives. Some Members came here today by motor car. One or two arrived in chauffeur-driven limousines, and perhaps SammyWilson came on his motorbike. In the last century when the motor car made its debut, someone walked in front with a red flag to warn of the dangers. In such circumstances some Members might have arrived with a green flag in front.
Just as the motor car has turned out to be safe if handled properly, let us hope that the new style of politics proposed in this report will be accepted — even if we continue to argue about the colour of the flag.
We cannot continue on horseback, because we are going nowhere fast. Members must face the future, uncertain as it may be, and we must stop putting obstacles that will prevent political progress in the way. In the engineering world, people from these Northern Counties influenced a rapidly changing world with their inventions. People like HarryFerguson, John Boyd Dunlop and many others did not turn away just because someone in Parliament said "You must confine your motor car to five miles per hour, and you must have someone walking in front with a red flag."
As Members debate this report the world is moving on, away from the engineering world which I have reflected upon and on to a new world of science and technology. That is the immediate challenge facing Members. Just as there were great innovators eager to encourage change in the past, there are many splendid people in the universities and the world of work today who have the knowledge and skills to put Northern Ireland back on the map. Their work has been seriously hindered by the continued political instability, and it is our task to do something constructive about that. Are Members prepared to be constructive or will we continue to live in the past with our little flags the only security we have to offer? I hope not.
Over the past few months Members have had an opportunity to focus on the political problems of the North and concentrate their minds on possible solutions. We know that the New Assembly must target social need, influence economic development and encourage cultural diversity. There will be 10Government Departments as well as the six implementation bodies to do just that.
Members have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that education and training is appropriate to today’s needs and those of tomorrow. If Northern Ireland is to compete in the ever-changing world of science and new technology, much has to be done to make up for the neglect of the past. Members cannot walk away from this responsibility merely because they disagree on a timescale for redressing decommissioning or whatever.
Northern Ireland has been through hell for 30years. Is the two-year timescale for sorting out these problems too much to live with? Progress in matters such as decommissioning is important; it will help reduce fear and mistrust, and Members who can influence progress have a responsibility to do so.
But there are other issues to be faced, and the most fundamental is the ability to trust each other and, in turn, to encourage the wider community to do likewise.
In the Assembly there are encouraging signs that people from different backgrounds are making a genuine effort to stretch out the hand of friendship. Slowly but surely they have begun the process of building bridges and have set about laying the foundations of a new future built on mutual respect and a growing sense of confidence. This process is the greatest weapon to ensure that never again will politics fail. Is it too much to ask that Members ensure that people can continue to build bridges, create trust and show leadership?
Returning to the report before us, let us welcome it enthusiastically so that we can at last begin to address the very serious problems in the Health Service, deal with the shortcomings in education and tackle social injustice in all its forms, particularly unemployment.
Over the last nine months, I have had the chance to meet many people, many involved in the world of business and commerce, others running the various Government agencies or holding down key positions in our universities and places of higher education. I have also met a multiplicity of people involved in the community sector working both in a voluntary and statutory capacity. All of them are dedicated people who have ideas for the future and some will, no doubt, become members of the Civic Forum where they can assist and support the Assembly in its work.
How can I, or anyone else, go back to these people to tell them that we have failed? We cannot do it, and if those who say they are opposed to the report were honest with themselves, they could not do it either. They are waiting for someone else to blink, to give way so that they can run to the battery of cameras outside screaming "Sell-out".
For political expediency, they want to gamble with the lives and future prosperity of our people. They do not care about the Health Service, the failings in our education system or the plight of the ordinary working-class people of this Province who have no jobs and no hope.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I take exception to the Member’s suggesting that Members on this side of the House who are opposing the motion do not care about education and health. How dare he?

Rev William McCrea: Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. How can it be that those who are so concerned about education and the rest will waste £90 million to have 10 Ministries and jobs for the boys?

Mr John Dallat: I will accept their apologies.
A few of those involved have made their fortune. Others are waiting, hoping, even praying, that someone else will make the decisions so necessary and they can continue to enjoy the salaries and perks of this House but without responsibility for those decisions. Their only contribution so far is to condemn and crucify those — [Interruption]

Mr Roger Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.

Mr John Dallat: No more points of order.

Lord Alderdice: It is not for one to dismiss points of order that arise.

Mr John Dallat: They are not points of order.

Lord Alderdice: When you find yourself in this Chair, as you undoubtedly will, you can deal with that particular question. If these are not points of order, then it makes me very chary of accepting future ones.
Mr Hutchinson, if it is genuinely a point of order, please give it.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: That is not for me to decide, MrInitial Presiding Officer. It is up to you to decide whether it is genuine or not.
Would the Gentleman be so aggressive if he were asking these Members here to get rid of their arms?

Lord Alderdice: That is not a point of order, and I will consider that when further points of order are requested. I cannot do otherwise.

Mr John Dallat: At all times I have shown courtesy to other Members when they were speaking.
Their only contribution so far is to condemn and crucify those who have shown courage and leadership. No one will ever know if the parliamentarians of the past who ordered that red flags should be carried in front of motor vehicles were genuinely concerned about the danger of the motor vehicles, or were simply political opportunists playing on fear in the same way as our politicians are today.
This morning Mr Mallon asked us to place our trust in each other. Mr Ervine reinforced that very well this afternoon. I will end with a little prayer of St Francis:
"Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred let me sow love; Where there is injury, pardon; Where there is doubt, faith; Where there is despair, hope; Where there is darkness, light; Where there is sadness, joy."
Northern Ireland needs to take heed of those sentiments. I beg the Assembly to endorse the report in its entirety.

Mr Jim Shannon: In 1966, following criticism from the anti-O’Neillite opposition to the perceived anti-Unionist policies of Terence O’Neill, LordBrookeborough gave this warning to his party colleagues:
"Many of us do not like the way things have been going of late. May I offer grave warning at this time — never at any time can we Unionists afford to forget that in unity, and unity alone, rests all our strength."
I appeal to those Unionists who would do today what they have refused to do during 30 years of terror, and that is to hand over to Dublin the right to dictate to people in Northern Ireland the way in which they should run their lives. This is the greatest concession ever to Republican violence in the history of NorthernIreland, and it is being made in the name of peace. Peace means that there are no bombs in London, although a certain level of violence can be accepted in Northern Ireland. This peace will only last until such time as Sinn Féin/IRA grows frustrated and returns to doing what it does best. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order. I find myself in the unusual position of having to ask for order from the colleagues of the Member who is speaking.

Mr Jim Shannon: I appeal to Ulster Unionists to stand by their manifesto pledges and rejoin us as we strive for the return of true democracy in NorthernIreland.
What has changed between 1974 and 1999? In 1974, Unionists stood firm and united to oppose the executive interference of Dublin, through the Council of Ireland, in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. In 1999, some Unionists support executive inference by Dublin, through the proposed North/South bodies. In 1974, it was proposed to establish an Executive based on a wholly unrepresentative and undemocratic Nationalist-to-Unionist ratio of 50:50. In 1999, some of the people who opposed this body 25 years ago are now supporting exactly the same proposal. In the past 30 years, however, more than 3,500 lives have been lost in this country in our attempts to preserve freedom and justice.
Those who support the ratification of this treacherous report say that it is the only way forward, if we do not want the murders and mutilations to resume. We are here today because of that violence, not because we are participating in a genuinely democratic process. For the time being, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and their murderous colleagues are satisfied with the concessions that have been made. But their strategy means that they will inevitably return to terror when these concessions cease. The peace of which these men speak is not based on compromise or on mutual respect but will be possible only when there is a united Ireland. Only then will they cease to have any quasi-political reasons for murdering Unionist people.
We all welcome investment in Northern Ireland, and the jobs and prosperity that go with it. However, what precluded peace and prosperity in the past was violent terrorism. There has been huge destruction of both life and property. The only path to peace and stability is to remove guns and explosives from the situation.
Sinn Féin/IRA demands that all sides carry out decommissioning — not just paramilitary organisations but also the legitimate forces of law and order in Northern Ireland, (the RUC and the British Army). If Sinn Féin were genuine in its wish for equality, it should demand that the Irish Army decommission. In 1969, this Army gathered at the border, in a blatantly provocative operation to "defend" one section of this community. They should be part of Sinn Féin’s equation. They could decommission a few tanks, to start with — that is if they have any. Perhaps the Irish Navy could scuttle a gunboat or two. That might stop them from illegally boarding British fishing vessels from Portavogie and Kilkeel in British waters.
Sinn Féin/IRA never stops talking about equality, but what about equality for the victims of their search for "peace"? What about the thousands of families and friends who have been robbed of their loved ones? When will we hear Gerry Adams stand up for the rights of the victims of the IRA? On 12 September last year, troops made a last symbolic patrol on the streets of Belfast before withdrawing to barracks. Yet the activities of all the paramilitary organisations have shown no signs of diminishing whatsoever. People are still being maimed by the weapons which the IRA and other groups continue to hold.
At the end of September last year, soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment stationed along the border had their personal protection weapons decommissioned. Perhaps the IRA could give their defenceless victims a week’s notice of their assassination, so that they can pop down to the barracks and sign out a personal protection weapon
Rumours about an escalation in Republican terrorism in those areas have substance. This is an ongoing problem for the security forces who, in spite of the supposed peace, are once again wearing flak jackets.
The IRA has yet to decommission one single round of ammunition. There can be few families in the Province which have not been touched by the deadly, cold hand of terrorism. While the Unionist and the Protestant people have felt the brunt of IRA violence, it is often forgotten that the organisation which was singularly responsible for the deaths of most Roman Catholics during the past 30 years was the IRA — the so-called protectors of Nationalists.
Two victims in particular come to mind. First, Kenneth Smyth, a UDR sergeant — my cousin — murdered on 10 December 1971, and, secondly, his colleague, Daniel McCormick, an ex-UDR soldier. Kenneth Smyth had been a B-Special; he was a UDR sergeant and a Protestant. Daniel McCormick had been in the UDR; he was a Roman Catholic, who left behind three young children. That is an example of a Protestant and a Roman Catholic both defending their country and both murdered by the IRA. As on most occasions throughout the troubles, the murderers simply made their way back to the sanctuary and confessional box of the Irish Republic.
Some people see fit to question the integrity of the security forces because of their religious make-up. The fate of the two brave men that I have mentioned can only be a major factor in this.
I will list some details of the terror that we had in the month of January to give Members some idea of what these boys are up to in their spare time. They seem to be pretty busy: 15 shootings, 35 beatings, 65exiles and 69 intimidations — 184 incidents, six for every day in January. These incidents took place, behind backs, in Holywood, Bangor, Cookstown, Londonderry, Dungannon, throughout Belfast and all over the place — an ongoing plan of terror against the good people of this Province. That is a phenomenal set of figures and makes interesting reading considering that we are meant to have peace. The conclusion of the peace process should have been peace, but that has not happened. There is not even a basis, a framework, or a foundation for peace of any sort.
All that Members have succeeded in getting is a growing list of demands from Gerry Adams and his pan-Nationalist colleagues. When one considers that it is estimated that the IRA has been responsible for over 1,000 knee-cappings and other forms of torture, which have left people maimed or disabled, one can really grasp the true spirit in which these people operate.
Sinn Fein/IRA has continually reaffirmed its pledge never to decommission, while in the same breath it, and its political masters, demand the destruction of the gallant Royal Ulster Constabulary and the decimation of the criminal justice system. This is the accountable democracy that certain politicians love to eulogise about. Thanks, but no thanks.
Armed terrorists cannot be allowed to take up positions through which they can dictate how we should run our lives when, for over 30 years, they have done their very best to destroy those lives. To do so would be to abandon every principle of freedom and justice that we have ever stood to defend and protect.
Gerry Adams was reported in a recent newspaper interview as having said that hundreds of people who would otherwise have died in the conflict are alive and well today because of these endeavours. He seemed to be implying that had not the ongoing concessions process offered up sufficient gains to satisfy the insatiable tapeworm appetite of pan-Nationalists, his colleagues would have killed hundreds more people in protest. Gerry Adams makes it crystal clear that that is what would have occurred, and he is saying that if his demands are not met, this is what will happen in future.
It is blatantly obvious that this Executive, this report, the agreement and this whole process are in no way accountable to the people of Northern Ireland, who have paid the price for a 30-year campaign of terror waged against them. On the contrary, it is based simply on the whim of those who were responsible for 30 years of violence, people who were, and still are, committed to the destruction of this country.
These people retain every ounce and bullet of their weapons capability to enable them to recommence their terror campaign, and their words indicate that that is what they intend to do, yet this report proposes to give them seats in the Executive of the Assembly, to see the destruction of Northern Ireland from within. At the same time, Dublin is given the first tentative reins of executive power over us.
Other Members have referred to their children. I am the father of three young boys, and I will be doing my best for them by taking this stand. It is for them and for the thousands of other children that the DUP takes a stand, and it is for the children and the grandchildren that we urge Unionists not to support this report. It is a total travesty of justice and represents a profound adulteration of all democratic principles.
This report must on no account be ratified, and I urge every democrat in the House to take the resolute action which is necessary to restore democracy to Northern Ireland and vote this report into the annals of history. This could be the day that Unionists recaptured their Unionism.

Mr John Kelly: A Chathaoirligh, we have heard all morning, and into the afternoon, about decommissioning. I contend that the issue which is central to the success of this agreement is not decommissioning but a commitment to equality in all its strands. Equality is at the core of this present peace process.
One has only to reflect back to 1985, to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, when there was no Sinn Féin, no decommissioning, no guns outside the door, inside the door or under the table. There was only the SDLP and the Alliance Party, and mainstream Unionism could not bring itself to share power with those constituents at that time. It is not about decommissioning, a Chathaoirligh, it is about equality.
Sinn Féin has campaigned strongly for a Department to deal with equality issues and we will continue to do so. We will continue to do so, a Chathaoirligh, because equality must be cardinal in the governance of the Six Counties, and a dedicated Department is the only way of beginning to do that. The equality agenda must be developed on an all-Ireland basis. We need to demand the same level of equality promised in the agreement for the 26 Counties as for the Six Counties.
Equality is a right for all our people, North and South, Protestant and Catholic, men and women, black and white. Recognising this truth is the first step towards cherishing all of the children of the nation equally.
A Chathaoirligh, during the 18 January discussions on the report from the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) Sinn Féin strongly criticised the proposal to locate the responsibility for the equality agenda within the office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). We did so, A Chathaoirligh, because even now, 30years after the Civil Rights Movement began its campaign to end discrimination, and after 25years of fair employment legislation, Nationalists are 2·2 times more likely to be unemployed than Unionists. This is why Sinn Féin puts such store by the equality agenda and the establishment of a Department to deal with it.
Neither the Unionist parties nor the British Government, with their proven track record, can be fully trusted to deliver on equality unless it is open and subject to public scrutiny on an ongoing basis. In that context, A Chathaoirligh, SeanFarren, speaking on behalf of the SDLP in an earlier discussion, indicated support for our call for a scrutiny Committee. Unfortunately we have not had any further details of this proposal placed before us today. We hope that this is not an empty promise, and I invite the First Minister (Designate) or the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to share their thoughts on this vitally important matter with us in their concluding comments.
A Chathaoirligh, those who advocated placing responsibility for the equality agenda under the influence of DavidTrimble have clearly disregarded his inability, thus far, to act impartially on issues of equality. The most glaring example of this lack of impartial perspective is his support for the Orange Order and other Loyalists in their attempts to trample over the rights of the Nationalist residents of the GarvaghyRoad. He too has persistently refused to meet with the residents or their elected representatives even though they are his constituents.
We believe that the SDLP has advanced the rather disingenuous argument that Unionists would take control of the equality Department under the d’Hondt system and apply a dead-hand policy to prevent any implementation of equality policies. The SDLP, in making this argument to journalists and to ourselves, appears to accept that the Unionist parties will continue to behave in the discriminatory fashion that has characterised their attitudes in councils throughout the North over the years.
Discrimination must be confronted, a Chathaoirligh, and the parties in this Assembly must set their faces against any practice that discriminates against any section of our community. This is the basis of the Good Friday Agreement and the new political beginning that we all signed up to. Discriminatory policies and practices —

Mr Alban Maginness: Does the Member agree that the SDLP’s position is to be preferred in relation to equality since this is not the province of one individual Minister? Rather it is a cross-departmental matter that is controlled, directed and inspired from the centre by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), a much more effective means of equality-proofing the policies of the future administration.

Mr John Kelly: The short answer is no. The reason — if I may continue — is that this is the basis of the Good Friday Agreement and the new political beginning that we all signed up to. Discriminatory policies and practices have distorted the political landscape in the North for many generations, and the Assembly should make it clear that that situation will no longer be tolerated.
We should, indeed, go further and ensure that there is no room for those who would discriminate or for those who would return to the bad old practice of Unionist domination and the denial of rights to Republicans or Nationalists or, indeed, Unionists. The argument that the matter of equality would become a battleground if placed in a separate Department ignores the fact that equality will be a battleground in any case.
It is better to have a dedicated Department with a cross-party scrutiny Committee than to let the issues become an ongoing bone of contention between the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) at the centre or, alternatively, to ignore or long-finger them in order to avoid dissension. If equality is placed at the centre and then ignored or treated with less importance than other issues, we will all come under severe criticism from a community that will feel let down in respect of the promise made to it by the agreement.
The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) can play an arbiter’s role in any dispute between Departments on this matter. They cannot be independent arbiters of their own Department. Equality in all of its dimensions is a critical element of the peace process and cannot be left to the vagaries of internal Unionist political dynamics. Equality of treatment, in all walks of life, has long been a central plank of Sinn Féin’s political agenda. Equality, and the eradication of discrimination, are central to the building of a stable and cohesive society.
Paragraph 3, under the heading "Human Rights", in the Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity section of the Good Friday Agreement, sets out a mode of working for public bodies which will be very different from the relationship that such bodies have had with the public until now. New Departments with new Ministers will need a great deal of help, advice and encouragement if we are to set out proper work practices from the outset. A new Department of the centre will simply not be able to give sufficient weight to this along with its other responsibilities in the early months.
In overseeing the new statutory duty on public bodies, both inside and outside the Assembly, an Equality Department could have worked successfully with the new Equality Commission, thus creating a strong internal and external mechanism for bringing about equality.
There can be no lasting political settlement which is not built on a solid foundation of equality. This is a fundamental democratic right which must be seen to be being delivered, and the most transparent manner by which that could be achieved is through an independent Department of Equality which was subject to examination by a cross-party scrutiny committee.
The Good Friday Agreement, a Chathaoirligh, was heralded as the beginning of the end of our shared history of misery, conflict, violence and grief. Throughout the island of Ireland our people have welcomed and voted to support the political accommodations and compromises that were so painstakingly negotiated over so many months. In all of this, a key concept — possibly the key concept — has been equality. The brave new beginning that the people of Ireland voted for, the democratic society that we are attempting to create, can only be built on the most solid foundations of equality.

Mrs Eileen Bell: First, I would like to concur with the remarks of my Colleague MrNeeson on the report as a whole. However, I will concentrate on the proposals for the Civic Forum. The Alliance Party will be supporting the report of the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) as we are very keen to see this Forum established. We do have some concerns over certain aspects of the proposals, and I will outline them now.
First of all, I would like to take the opportunity, as a member of the consultative sub-group, to thank all those organisations and individuals who made submissions. As a local representative and a community activist, I can appreciate the need for the Civic Forum, and I do hope it will be set up as quickly as possible. The development of civil society in NorthernIreland, and the Assembly’s interaction with it, are fundamental requirements upon which to build on the foundation laid by the agreement. The Civic Forum can complement the institutions of representative democracy and provide a greater sense of legitimacy to their decisions. It should not, and will not if it is set up effectively, threaten anyone. It is accepted that the Civic Forum should be consultative; nevertheless, there is great scope for its having a substantive and innovative role that will complement the Assembly.
The Civic Forum should be encouraged to look at cross-sectoral, inter-departmental themes. It could initiate new strategic thinking, bring forward fresh ideas and show policy creativity in areas where the Assembly would perhaps not be so flexible. There are a number of policy areas in which it would have important things to say — for example, on sustainable development, social inclusion and the competitiveness of NorthernIreland. It could also play a useful role in addressing society’s divisions and help to promote reconciliation, and we need that. It is noteworthy that we in NorthernIreland are lucky to have a large part of civic society organised on cross-community lines.
This report, at times, bears no resemblance to the areas in our sub-group report, and I am sorry about that. Comments and suggestions made by all parties have been left out, and those omissions take away from the credibility of the report. It is disappointing that the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) have not reflected the hopes expressed by myself and others for the success of the Civic Forum — sometimes even their own hopes.
It is important that the Assembly take the Civic Forum seriously. The Civic Forum should act largely on the basis of matters referred to it by the Assembly, and it should have a useful role to play in commenting on any programme of action coming from the Executive — if we ever get that far.
The report is not clear about whether the Forum will have the ability to raise matters on its own initiative, nor is it clear on the relationship that should be built up between the Assembly and the Civic Forum.
I am also concerned about the proposed nomination process for the 60 members. It should not just comprise the great and the good, although those people have made a contribution, they have been to the forefront of the voluntary, community, trade unionist and commercial worlds; but it should also include people who have worked long and hard in dreadful conditions and without recognition. They have had a great effect on their own communities and on NorthernIreland in general.
I am therefore concerned that the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) have the authority to nominate six personal choices. That was never suggested to us in the sub-group. We have heard a number of Members expressing concern that the UUP and the SDLP have taken too much power onto themselves. It is vital that this Forum maximise, as far as is possible, the diversity of opinion in NorthernIreland. We would lose an opportunity were we not to do it. I therefore ask the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) that information be given to us with regard to the criteria for nominating these six direct appointees. There must be no chance of marginalisation of any group or section, and no preference should be given. The rigid division of the make-up of the different sectors is, perhaps, overly inflexible. I hope that no significant groups have slipped between the cracks and, as a consequence, will feel aggrieved.
I am also unclear as to what was meant by the First Minister (Designate) when he said that they would have oversight of the nominations. Does that mean that the public will nominate these individuals for selection by the First and Deputy First Ministers? Or will they select them after they have discussed it with them and reached an agreement as to who they would put forward? Oversight is not enough. We must be clear regarding the line of selection and nomination.
I do hope that paragraph 10(2) will be adhered to: that the evolution of the Forum will produce an ongoing monitoring programme in the remit of the proposed subcommittee that is mentioned. The review must be effective and constructive to ensure the maintenance of a Civic Forum that represents truly the rich and diverse civic society that abounds in NorthernIreland. After the proposed review of 12months they can have an ongoing monitoring programme by way of a proper and effective review. It will be like the Assembly, an evolving thing. It is new.
We are starting off from a completely new scenario, and in the Civic Forum we must take all the advantages of the work that has been done in society over the years. We have had more than enough of majority rule in NorthernIreland, so politicians and citizens must now go forward to build an equitable, responsible, accountable and truly inclusive NorthernIreland. The Civic Forum must be equipped to do this and to proceed with the confidence and the respect of the Assembly.
I support the motion.

Mr Danny O'Connor: TonyBlair stated at the time of the Good Friday Agreement that he felt the hand of history on his shoulder. Twenty-five years after the collapse of the Sunningdale Agreement, history must not be allowed to repeat itself. This process is not perfect, but it gives us the best chance in 25years to deliver good, accountable government to the people of NorthernIreland on the issues that really matter — health, education, jobs and economic development.
As we consider the contents of the document before us, we must make that step forward. The overwhelming majority of the people voted for that accountable government, and we must deliver it to them. The determination must be made to agree the numbers on departmental responsibilities in order to be able to take this process forward and be ready to assume power on the appointed day.
The agreement is a principled compromise which allows Nationalists and Unionists an equal say in the way our country is to be governed. It is fitting, therefore, that an Executive should reflect this equity by having 10Ministers and 10 Departments. By having five Nationalist Ministers and five Unionist Ministers we will have to work together for the good of all the people.
Some people have suggested seven ministerial Departments: four Unionist and three Nationalist. This would be a perversion of the election. The combined first preference vote of Nationalists and Republicans for the SDLP and SinnFéin was 320,821. The combined first-preference vote for the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP was 318,142. It is inconceivable that with Nationalists and Republicans achieving more votes at the polls than the DUP or UUP, the process should be gerrymandered to allow Nationalists less representation on an Executive. That would be totally unjust. The designation of the 10Departments provides many overlaps, thus making it necessary for all the Ministers to work together collectively for the good of all the people.
I welcome the proposals for the Civic Forum. I pay tribute to the six parties which took part in the round-table discussions on it. The Civic Forum is very important in that it will complement the Assembly. It will act as a valuable consultative body, and its membership will be inclusive. All sections of the people will be represented through industry, trade unions and voluntary organisations.
Mr Kelly, a SinnFéin Member for Mid Ulster, touched on the Equality Department and why his party felt that it was necessary to have a separate Equality Department. I welcome the fact that the Equality Department is being retained within the office of First and Deputy First Ministers. It is much too important an issue to be the remit of one Minister.
MrKelly said that the Unionists, the British, could not be trusted with equality. That is exactly why it cannot be the remit of either a Nationalist or a Unionist. It is much more important than that. By retaining it within the office of the First and Deputy First Minister, each can police the situation for the benefit of both Nationalist and Unionist; they can ensure that equality is a real issue in each of the 10Departments, and it is not sidelined. The political integrity of the whole equality issue will be maintained as long as it stays at the centre.
There can be no blaming Unionists for doing this or Nationalists that. By retaining it within the collective office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, we ensure that it is dealt with correctly.
Every Member is responsible for ensuring the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Within the agreement parties must use their influences to achieve full decommissioning of all illegal weapons by May 2000. This is still the case. The Deputy First Minister (Designate) has said that if it does not happen he will vote to exclude those who do not fulfil these obligations from ministerial office, and I support him in this.
But today violence in our streets has subsided. People now focus on punishment beatings. They are terrible and an abuse of human rights. We all accept that. But people are walking our streets today who would not otherwise be. Before the ceasefires between 80 and 100 people lost their lives through terrorist violence each year. Since the ceasefires in 1994, there are between 300 and 400 people alive in this country who would not be otherwise. This is something that we should not lose sight of. Had only one person been still alive, this whole process would still have been worthwhile and to suggest otherwise is total nonsense.
Many Members have talked about decommissioning, including the decommissioning of guns. Perhaps some of them — those former members of the Ulster Resistance — would use their influence to ensure that the illegally held weapons brought in from South Africa are also decommissioned.
I remind the House that guns do not kill people. People kill people. Guns are sometimes used, but the weapon can be a knife, a hammer or a crowbar. It is far better to decommission the mindset that makes people want to kill. That can be achieved through the democratic process in which we are engaged. By listening and learning from each other we can build the trust that will move this society forward.
I should like to finish my maiden speech by quoting MartinLutherKing. He said
"We are not where we want to be, but thank God we are not where we used to be."

Mr Sammy Wilson: We have had a useful debate in which many of the issues that surround the report have been well aired. Perhaps it has not been as colourful as the debate on 18 January. MrMallon has not been flying his aeroplane, and MrClose has not been pushing his wheelbarrow, but we have dealt with some of the issues.
Two aspects of the report have been skirted. The Ulster Unionists have been guilty of that because they fear where the report will take them, and Members of other parties have done it because they know that the contents of this report, the compromise as they call it, is not the essence of good government for NorthernIreland.
I will use a metaphor which I am sure Members, and especially Sinn Féin Members, will understand. The report is a political time bomb that people started to construct in December. Bringing the report to the Assembly has put in place its timing mechanism, and the leader of Sinn Féin has said "When we take the vote, we will trigger that mechanism." Perhaps he knows all about triggering mechanisms.
The First Minister (Designate) has told us that we then simply hand it to the Secretary of State to do as she wants. She has no intention of defusing that bomb if things do not go the way that the Ulster Unionists think they should go. It will explode and destroy democracy and the Union because it will blow into government members of Sinn Féin/IRA.
I do not care what we have heard from Members of Sinn Féin in the debate. GerryAdams spoke about being concerned that there was no Minister for children. Many were left as orphans by the work of his organisation. Gerry Adams also talked about there being no special provision for the elderly, many of whom have lived all their adult lives in the shadow of the gun and the bomb, and perhaps lost loved ones as a result. Sinn Féin portrays this new image, which was probably just as nauseating on the television upstairs as it was in the Chamber.
DavidErvine turned all his bile on DUP Members because they dared to highlight the true nature and affiliations of Sinn Féin. I do not regard him as a traitor. However, I do regard him as a sad case, who comes from the Unionist community and spends the 10 minutes he has in the Assembly attacking fellow Unionists and defending Sinn Féin. You would think that he might have learnt by now — the man who gave GerryAdams the benefit of the doubt at the time of Canary Wharf. You would think he would have learnt by now not to trust IRA/Sinn Féin. [Interruption]
I will come to the Member in a minute. I do not want him to feel left out.
We have this new face of Sinn Féin — Martin McGuinness tells us he is offended because when he walks along the corridors in this building, David Trimble will not say "Hello" to him. Of course, he does not say "Hello" to half of his own party, so it really does not make much of a difference. This is the new sensitive face, the caring face, of Sinn Féin that is being presented — they plant trees instead of bombs, and we are supposed to think that this is progress. Well, I do not believe it is progress to set in train a string of events which will place people who still wish to retain their arsenal in a government.
The second thing I wish to say is this: quite a lot of Members have mentioned aspects of this report which they do not like. It is not a report set for good or efficient government — it was never designed for that. The First Minister said that it had been his aim to have seven Departments, and indeed Members of his own party have said that more than seven Departments were unnecessary. Anyone who wanted more than seven departments just wanted to get his snout in the trough. Yet the First Minister (Designate) said that he gave up the idea of seven Departments not because it would be good for efficient government but because it gave him a negotiating tool. We have finished up now with 10 Departments which will cost the taxpayers £90million and give us a form of government which is most inefficient.
People have asked why the DUP did not put forward proposals. We did. We said that there was nobody in the House who had any experience of government in Northern Ireland in the past and that, rather than jump in with both feet, we should start with what we had. Then, if we needed to expand Government Departments after we had learnt about how they operated, we could do that later. But, oh no. Now we have a set of new Government Departments.
Let me talk about something that was mentioned this morning. The education and library boards will now find themselves responsible not to one Minister but to three Ministers. For schools, it will be the Minister for Education; for student support, the Minister for Higher Education; and for libraries the Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure. Is that going to lead to better government? In no other part of the United Kingdom are, for example, schools and libraries separated.
We have got a programme which the Department of Education has been promoting and which I understand all parties in the Assembly have been promoting — Education for Life-long Learning. The whole essence of this programme is that we have an integrated system of education. Libraries, schools and further education are all integrated. What has this report done? This report has fragmented that.
I also have some knowledge of planning. In England, unitary authorities are being set up because it has been recognized that it is a nonsense to separate development control from strategic planning. What does this report do? It separates strategic planning from development control, and transport planning, urban planning, social regeneration and social development are elsewhere. Three elements of planning are in three different departments— and this is supposed to give us more efficient government.
Indeed, some of the report’s authors do not have a clue about what is meant by some of the terms. I always understood "sustainable development" to encompass all aspects of government — where one integrates it, and where one plans to make sure that communities are sustainable. Therefore one has to make sure that schools, roads and housing, for instance, are in the right location. Sustainable development is a kind of overarching concept in planning, yet it has been stuck into one department. I suppose the rest of those engaged in planning will feel that it is not their responsibility.
I could go on, but I do not have much time. Were Assembly Members to be honest with themselves, they would recognise this report for what it is — a piece of political chicanery and nothing to do with effective government. That is why we will be rejecting it.

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order. We have just listened to another outstanding contribution from the Member for East Belfast, and the reason everyone in the Chamber listened to his every word was that he did not read from a prepared text. All Members of the Assembly have made their maiden speeches. There is no excuse now for any Member to read verbatim from a prepared text. Can we not encourage Members to stop reading their speeches and engage in proper debate?

Lord Alderdice: I accept that that is an interesting point of order, and I shall make two responses to it. First, should Members wish this to be included as a note in Standing Orders, the proper thing to do would be to bring it to the attention of the Committee on Standing Orders. It is constructing the draft Standing Orders which I hope will be presented to this Chamber fairly soon. Should it be included in Standing Orders, I hope that Members will also indicate how the matter might be policed — for the sake of myself or whoever else is in the Chair. Secondly, in the absence of a Standing Order, should the Member concerned be very persuaded by the value of speeches being produced with the tremendous vitality and enthusiasm of his Colleague, he could perhaps draw that to the attention of some of his other Colleagues who have perhaps been a little less impressive.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: A Chathaoirligh. First, I give today’s report a qualified welcome. It is a welcome if belated step forward in the political process towards setting up the Executive and the all-Ireland bodies. My Colleagues have been outlining our party’s concerns with this report and I share those concerns, especially with regard to the placing of equality in the centre. Equality and human rights provisions were central to the Good Friday Agreement. Outside the confines of this Assembly, equality and human rights have been scarce commodities in Portadown. The small Nationalist community in that town has endured more than seven months of an orchestrated campaign of sectarian terror and intimidation carried out by the Orange Order and its supporters.
Since last July there have been more than 150protests and demonstrations, most of them illegal, held by the Orange Order and Loyalists in the town. These have been carried out on an almost nightly basis, effectively corralling the small Nationalist community centred on the Garvaghy Road into their homes. The Nationalist population of Portadown cannot go about their normal, everyday business in the town. They cannot shop, go to the bank or to the post office or visit the local leisure centre for fear that they will be attacked and beaten. Those areas are out of bounds to them. Loyalists have verbally and physically abused schoolchildren whose uniform marks them out as Catholics. The case of Robert Hamill —

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order. The Member has just referred to the phrase "out of bounds". In terms of the motion her speech is very clearly out of bounds. We are not debating the Garvaghy Road or the Drumcree situation today, and I ask you to direct the Member to be relevant in her remarks.

Lord Alderdice: I was waiting to see how her speech related to one of the Departments. I trust that Ms O’Hagan will speak to the motion.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: The case of Robert Hamill, who was beaten to death in Portadown town centre by a Loyalist mob as the RUC looked on, graphically illustrates the reality of sectarianism in Portadown.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. At the last sitting there was a clear direction by the Chair — not by you but by the person who took over in your absence — that Members had to confine their remarks to the issues that are contained in the motions on the Order Paper. It is clear that that is not being done. I ask you to ensure that Members confine their comments to the matters on the Order Paper and not trot out some hobby horse that a Member might like to ride up and down the GarvaghyRoad.

Lord Alderdice: We are debating the Departments, and I ask MsO’Hagan to speak to the motion.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: If I am allowed to continue the House will see the relevance of my comments because I will refer to equality being under the auspices of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate).
It is against the background of the shameful events in Portadown that the failure to implement the Good Friday Agreement is set. The continuing political vacuum, caused by the failure of Unionism to deal with Nationalism on the basis of equality, is the reason for the crisis in Portadown. DavidTrimble, despite his roles as MP and Assembly Member for the area and the First Minister (Designate), has consistently refused to meet the representatives of the Garvaghy Road community. His latest refusal occurred just last week. DavidTrimble is a member of the Orange Order, and he should use his influence to halt the organised campaign of violence that is being carried out by the Orange Order in Portadown.

Mr Maurice Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. At the last sitting of the Assembly, when I tried to speak I was interrupted 14 times. I was challenged because it was claimed that I was not speaking to the motion. MsO’Hagan is not speaking to the motion, and I ask you to rule on that.

Lord Alderdice: Your colleagues raised that and I asked MsO’Hagan to speak to the motion. It seems that MsO’Hagan is beginning to address the matter of the First Minister (Designate) and his Department. If she continues in that direction her speech will be relevant.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: The report asks Members to make equality the responsibility of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). How does MrTrimble propose to ensure that the people of the GarvaghyRoad are treated with equality, given that he refuses to speak to them?
That community has a right to expect MrTrimble to ensure that their rights are protected. The Good Friday Agreement, under the section Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity, states that the parties to the agreement affirm the right to freedom from sectarian harassment. From July, events in Portadown show the inability of Unionism to live up to the Good Friday Agreement. Those events also call into question the ability of the First Minister (Designate) to treat Nationalists on a basis of equality. Peace requires change that is based on equality, justice, human rights and respect.
It is time to stop Unionist terror and violence in Portadown. DavidTrimble has the power and influence to end the Nationalist nightmare in that town and to resolve the crisis in the political process and set about the implementation of the Executive. If he is serious about peace and sincere in his desire to create a new political atmosphere, he must act and act quickly.
Go raibh maíth agat.

Mr Patrick Roche: The report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), which has been put to the Assembly for a determination by a cross-community vote, feeds into the Armalite and ballot box strategy of Sinn Féin/IRA. The report does not even mention the word "decommissioning". This means that in its negotiations since July 1998 on the detail of the Belfast Agreement, the UUP leadership has failed to incorporate into this report the logic of its own understanding of the agreement, that the agreement requires the decommissioning of the IRA’s terrorist arsenal as a condition of Sinn Féin’s taking its seats in the Executive. The failure to build this into the report as an explicit requirement for Sinn Féin’s participation in the Executive amounts to total capitulation on the part of the UUP negotiators to what Mr Adams, in the politics of Irish freedom, has called "the vital cutting edge" of the Republican movement.
The UUP negotiators have also capitulated to what Mr Adams refers to as "the non-armed forms of political struggle". The reason for this is that the UUP negotiators have conceded the full Nationalist demand for the number of seats in the Executive. The result of this UUP capitulation is that the role of Sinn Féin/IRA in the Government of Northern Ireland and in the North/South Ministerial Council has been maximised. The overall import of the report can be seen with brutal clarity: the UUP negotiators, in agreeing this report, have finalised the retreat that they have been making throughout the period of the so-called peace process from virtually every position of strategic significance for Unionism. This means that, in the terms of the Belfast Agreement and the detail of this report, the UUP negotiators have capitulated to a moral and political indignity of almost unbelievable proportions.
The terms of the Belfast Agreement and this report provide for the citizens of Northern Ireland to be governed by the architects and activists of the Republican terrorism that has been directed against them for 30 years while the IRA maintains its terrorist arsenal and organisational structures intact.
That is why no Member authentically committed to democracy and to the integrity of the rule of law could possibly vote for this report. But the UUP position is that the report should be agreed by a cross-community determination and then either "parked" or "reviewed" in case the IRA refuses to decommission its terrorist arsenal. The problem with both these proposals — apart from their inherent ambiguity — is that they are not provided for as options in the terms of the agreement.
There is nothing in the agreement that provides for a "parking" of the implementation of the agreement, whatever that term may mean. There are certainly no provisions in the agreement for a "review" in the case of a refusal on the part of the IRA to decommission its terrorist arsenal. These considerations mean that any attempt to "park" or "review" the agreement would not have the support of either the Government of the United Kingdom or the Government of the Republic.
The ultimate strategic blunder on the part of MrTrimble in putting the report to a determination is that he will either split his own party or the determination will have cross-community support. But in the event of cross-community support, the political initiative will pass immediately to a Secretary of State whose commitment to Irish unity is set out in unambiguous detail in a Labour Party policy document entitled ‘Towards a United Ireland’, which was co-authored by Mo Mowlam. The determination of the report would mean that the introduction of the Standing Orders to trigger the d’Hondt mechanism to seat Sinn Féin/IRA in the Executive would be entirely at the discretion of a Secretary of State committed to Irish unity.
The Secretary of State would then have to make a choice between "facing down" Unionist opposition to the seating of Sinn Féin in the Executive without IRA decommissioning or a return to terrorism on the part of the IRA. The choice of the Secretary of State is entirely predictable, since the whole political rationale of the agreement is to meet the requirements of Sinn Féin/IRA for what the Mitchell Report describes as "taking the gun out of Irish politics". If need be, this means that the Secretary of State would almost certainly choose the option of neutralising any attempt to "park" the implementation of the agreement, particularly in the wake of the entire detail of the agreement’s being accepted in a cross-community vote in the Assembly. A Unionist vote supporting the report would therefore amount to a virtually irretrievable strategic blunder.
The consent principle in the agreement would provide no protection to Unionists once the Rubicon of accepting this report was crossed. The reason for this is twofold.
First, the consent principle in the agreement relates only to the issue of the final choice for Irish unity. Secondly, the consent principle in the agreement is not based on recognition of the legitimacy of Unionism. On the contrary, the repeated references in the agreement to "the people of the island of Ireland" and their right to self-determination concedes a fundamental point of Irish Nationalism — that there is a single nation or people on the island of Ireland. Ulster Unionists who took part in the negotiations leading to the agreement were, obviously, unaware that by making this concession to a fundamental tenet of Irish Nationalism they were undermining entirely the legitimacy of Unionism and the status of Northern Ireland within the Union.
The consent principle mentioned in the agreement is not related to any recognition of Unionism but is a purely pragmatic requirement for political stability in a united Ireland. This separation between the principle of consent and the legitimacy of Unionism is a fundamental element in the attitude of Irish Nationalism to Unionist consent. It can also be seen in DrMowlam’s policy document ‘Towards a United Ireland’. This view is that, since Unionism is itself devoid of legitimacy, Unionists have no right of veto over how their consent to Irish unity — or any other issue — is obtained.
The logic of this position is developed in detail by MrJohnHume in his book ‘Personal Views’. MrHume’s central thesis is that the recognition of successive British Governments of Unionists’ right to veto with regard to Irish unity was the fundamental cause of the last 30 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland. MrHume turns the victim into the culprit and is prepared to follow through unambiguously in the logic of his view on what he calls the Unionist veto. His position is that, if coercion is required to obtain Unionist consent, then Unionists must be coerced. This means that if this report were given cross-community support while its implementation is "parked" MrHume would not align the SDLP with those who demand that the IRA should decommission its terrorist arsenal before Sinn Féin can take seats in an executive. On the contrary, Mr Hume would, almost certainly, see such a situation as an appropriate opportunity finally to "lance the Protestant boil".
The presentation of this report to the Assembly brings Northern Ireland to the edge of the Union. The Unionist electorate should, therefore, take this moment to evaluate their leaders coolly, avoiding both political disorientation and defeatism. In short, they must avoid doing what some self-proclaimed leaders of Unionism have done. I take no pleasure in the development of this point.
During the debate on this report the leader of the UKUP set out his reasons for opposing it, just a few days after his party conference had indulged in the political tomfoolery of conferring honorary life membership on Dr Conor Cruise O’Brien. Dr O’Brien is now an unqualified advocate of old-style Irish unity. The argument set out in the final chapter of his memoirs is that Unionists have no option but to negotiate their status as Protestants in a united Ireland. Dr O’Brien dismissed the Union as a mere abstraction and argues that his plan for Irish unity would put the IRA out of business. That is indeed the case, as DrO’Brien’s plan would concede to the IRA everything for which they have terrorised the Unionist community for 30 years.
The political disorientation of the UKUP under MrMcCartney’s leadership is such that the author of a plan for Irish unity, involving the appeasement on a massive scale of IRA terrorism, has been reinstated to the party as an honorary life member just a few months after I, with the support of my Assembly Colleagues, and in the face of opposition from MrMcCartney, forced him to resign.
This insight into the politics of the UKUP is entirely relevant to the current situation. A vote to approve the determination of the structures proposed in this report would precipitate a crisis for the Union not seen since 1912. That is why I appeal to UUP Members to vote against the report. If this report is accepted on a cross-community vote, the first task for the Unionist electorate will be to deal with Unionist leaders who have nothing more to commend them than a lethal combination of strategic ineptitude and political stupidity at a time of serious crisis for the Union.

Ms Brid Rodgers: First of all, I advise MrRoche to read more carefully what Mr Hume wrote, because he has been quite selective in his dissertation on MrHume’s views. He might also recognise that it was the SDLP, under John Hume’s leadership, that was the first party on these islands to write the word "consent" into its Constitution.
The report is the culmination of a lengthy process of negotiation and consultation among the parties in the Assembly, and it represents yet another step in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Let no one forget that this agreement has the support of three out of four people in Northern Ireland and 85% of the people of this island. Those people voted for an agreement which they understood to be a compromise, an accommodation requiring give and take on all sides. They have a right to see the agreement working, and all of us in the Assembly share the responsibility to fully implement the Good Friday Agreement to the letter and, as SeamusMallon said earlier, in spirit.
The setting up of Departments, as proposed in the report, will allow Members, as democratically elected representatives, to influence in a practical and accountable way the important decisions which affect the lives of their constituents. It will put an end to situations, such as the one which arose last week, when the Government, having announced an injection of resources for pre-school education last year, summarily changed their mind and reallocated the resources elsewhere. Members do not know what priorities influenced this volte-face; we do not know why the money was reallocated, and Members had no say in the matter. That is an intolerable situation, one which can be remedied when Members take the next step of assuming the right to influence and make decisions on these important issues themselves.
I listened to the tired old rhetoric of the past from some of the Benches in the corner opposite. Members heard the usual attempts to represent the proposition — and indeed the whole agreement — as a danger to the Unionist identity. Dr Paisley raised the question of victims of violence — an understandably emotive issue, unfortunately affecting all sections of society. However, the real question is how can Members ensure that there will be no more victims of violence. By raising the temperature and, unnecessarily, the fears of the Unionist community — and we know, from people such as David Ervine, the effect that that has had in Northern Ireland in the past — do DrPaisley and the DUP think that that is going to do anything to ensure that there will be no more victims of violence?
The agreement which is being implemented, and which I hope will continue to be implemented, is about achieving a situation where there are no more victims of violence and where Members can change the face of this community. SammyWilson talked about past atrocities and about blighted and lost lives. I want to know what contribution he and his party have made to bring about the changes which will ensure that no more lives will be blighted or lost. I have not seen that contribution to date.
The leaders of the political parties in this Chamber (JohnHume, DavidTrimble, GerryAdams and DavidErvine — all of them) have taken risks when it was necessary, risks to move away from past attitudes. They have seen the option of sticking with past attitudes and where that has brought the community. I do not need to illustrate it; we have seen it all around us for the last 30 years. They have seen this and have taken the option of taking risks, moving forward and changing the face of this community. This is why, as Danny O’Connor said, "We are where we are and not where we used to be."
May I remind the pro-agreement parties that we need to rededicate and recommit ourselves to what we signed up to and what the people supported:
"We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning. The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or who have been injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.
We pledge that we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement."
What we need to do is to concentrate on the commitment we have made and ensure that we deliver on it. Each of us needs to concentrate on what we can deliver, not what the others must deliver.
We have firmly committed ourselves to achieving mutual trust. Decommissioning has been raised time and time again. The issue of decommissioning is about establishing mutual trust. It is about building confidence. To rephrase a statement made by the late JohnFKennedy, it is not about what we can do for ourselves but what we can do for others. It is about what we can do for the agreement and not what the agreement can do for us.
The agreement is the people’s agreement. I have not heard people from either side of the community saying that they are desperately concerned about decommissioning. Of course decommissioning is an issue, but what people are really desperately concerned about is that this agreement should be made to work and that it should be implemented as agreed. That means everyone playing his part in achieving that.
Finally, I want to see decommissioning. My party wants to see decommissioning. The people want to see decommissioning, and I want to ask the Democratic Unionist Party in particular how they are going to bring about decommissioning outside of this agreement which they are opposed to and which they want to see ended. How are they going to do it? It has not been achieved in 30years.
SeamusMallon rightly said this morning that the only vehicle we have for bringing about decommissioning is the Good Friday Agreement. If we want it to happen then each of us will play our part in implementing that agreement, in building the necessary confidence and trust to make sure that we can implement it. We cannot implement it and work together in a government where that trust is not built. It is a matter for each of us to build each other’s confidence.
I leave Members with those thoughts and support the motion as another step in implementing the will of the people of Ireland and the people of NorthernIreland.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: A number of questions arise out of this debate today. A number of questions must be heavy on the minds of Members, no matter what section of the Assembly they come from.
Is Northern Ireland ready for self-government? Of course, every democrat would say that NorthernIreland deserves self-government. NorthernIreland should never have lost its own parliament in the past. It should never have lost the opportunity to govern itself and the citizens of NorthernIreland. However, with that question comes a solemn responsibility. What type of self-government does NorthernIreland want? What type of self-government does NorthernIreland deserve?
In the report offered by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) there is nothing resembling good and stable government for the people of NorthernIreland. My Colleague SammyWilson went through the report looking at each Department and pointing out the ramshackle arrangement of the various Departments. It does not make sense.
It is not only the Democratic Unionist Party that has taken this view about the structure of government in NorthernIreland.
Leading members of the Ulster Unionist Party, people such as KenMaginnis, have said that this is the worst example of snouts in the trough — old Fianna Fáilism — politics that he has ever seen. Other leading Members, who could by no means be described as belonging to the "no camp" of Unionism, have said that it is a waste of £96 million of Government resources. If that is their view — and they are in favour of the agreement — then how can they expect my party, which is critical of this report, to agree with its contents?
Just this morning, MrTrimble’s office passed around corrections to pages that were not in the original report. The accurate report shows us the way in which this oligarchical structure has been designed. Indeed, in the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) there are something like 27 areas of responsibility — three times the size of any other Department. They really trust their friends, you know! They are not prepared to dish out any of this responsibility to anything, to anyone, or to any other Member, even to those in their own party.
The only other Department which comes close, with 14 areas of responsibility, is either JohnTaylor’s or RegEmpey’s Department — the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Department — and there will have to be a political carve-up in that one. MrTrimble’s Office has responsibility for freedom of information. Imagine that, when it cannot even arrange for this information to be disseminated among Members in good time.
Going through the report, many Members, including EileenBell of the Alliance Party, dwelt heavily on the issue of consultative —

Mr Denis Haughey: The logic of MrSammyWilson’s intervention was that there should really be only one Department of Government. The logic of MrPaisley’s intervention now appears to be that there should be 143 Departments of Government since each Government Department, as set out in the report, is packed with far too many responsibilities.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Member for Mid Ulster is just being silly. He should listen to what some of his Colleagues in his new coalition shadow Executive have been saying — one of the Back-Benchers in the Ulster Unionist Party made it clear that with six Ministers in Northern Ireland, we would have three too many. Three could perform the task of administering Northern Ireland adequately. This is the view of the people with whom he wishes to share power.
With regard to the consultative Civic Forum, the share-out of responsibilities is unbelievable — our largest industry gets a minority position on this body. The voluntary/community sector — that sector of failed or aspiring politicians — gets the greatest number of representatives in NorthernIreland. That is a shame, and this consultative Civic Forum will be a waste of space and a waste of resources. NorthernIreland will have about 168 legislators and advisors when other areas of the United Kingdom, which are considerably larger, will have less than half that number to administer those areas.
On ‘Good Morning, Ulster’ this morning, MrTrimble said that this was not a significant day by any means and that today’s vote does not really matter. If this is such an insignificant vote, why can the Ulster Unionist Whips not lay off their Members? Why can they not say that today there will be a free vote for all of the Ulster Unionist Members? I would like to see just how many would vote for this report then. In their election manifesto the Ulster Unionists made a very straight commitment — they said that they did not wish to sit in a Government with unreconstructed terrorists. This report will usher those very unreconstructed terrorists into government, as MrWeir said earlier today, and I agree with his view.
The euphoria of 1998 is evaporating — we can see that all around us in Northern Ireland. Look at the recent poll findings in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. A total of 84% of respondents said that they wanted the decommissioning of all terrorist weapons immediately. A massive 93% of Protestants, and almost 70% of Catholics, said that they wanted decommissioning to start straight away.
I notice that Ms Rodgers, who is a touchstone of Unionist opinion, does not seem to know that 70% of the community that she comes from want decommissioning right away. On day four of this survey it went on to say that four out of five people — over 83% of the population of Northern Ireland — want the early release of prisoners stopped. This deal is currently unravelling, and it is doing so on issues that we predicted.
Then, of course, there are the negotiators of the Belfast Agreement who told us this was the best deal possible but who are now running away from that deal. People such as Ken Maginnis, who boasted that he had negotiated the Police Commission for Northern Ireland, last Friday distanced himself from it and said he wanted nothing more to do with it. If that is the best they can offer us, dear help this country.
The Secretary of State should realise that what she sows in Northern Ireland she will reap, not just in Northern Ireland, but right across the United Kingdom. She will reap what she sows when people bow not to democracy only to terror and she realises that, as has been happening in Northern Ireland for too long, coffins are being put in the ground across the entire United Kingdom. Instead of leading us towards a situation where peace ought to come about, this Government is taking us back to a situation where peace can never come about.
I listened carefully to many of the speeches. MrTrimble said there were functions missed out of the 18 January report, and it has taken until now to include them. Of course there were functions missed out. The most glaring omission in this report is the absence of any mention of decommissioning — it has not got a look in. Mr Trimble must have been really embarrassed yesterday whenever he was shown up by Bertie Ahern who dared to mention decommissioning, while he has been running away from it and not daring to mention it in his reports.
The Deputy First Minister (Designate), MrMallon, said that we have overcome the difficulties. The only reason he is able to say that the difficulties have been overcome is that he has avoided including decommissioning in this report; he has avoided grappling with that issue; he has avoided tugging that little flower that he said he wanted to tug.

Mr Seamus Mallon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Member’s Colleague tried to interrupt me. I wish I could give way, but I have only two minutes left.
Mr Mallon also said — and I quote him directly —
"Outside of this agreement there is no prospect of decommissioning."
The reality is — and I speak to you solemnly today — that within this agreement and this report there is no prospect of decommissioning either. Everyone must face that reality — and I wish we all could. There is not the slightest chance of our seeing decommissioning coming out of this report or this agreement.
Mr Farren, in his little gambit to be a Minister in Northern Ireland, said that there was no alternative. There are countless alternatives to this agreement but none which will suit the Provisional IRA, and that is why Sinn Féin/IRA are for this agreement. That is the reality. There is no mention of decommissioning in this report.
I say to the Back-Bench Unionists that they should not put their faith in Bertie Ahern; they should not vote for this because Bertie Ahern says he will give them some support further on down the road. They cannot trust his words. They should not put their eggs in Bertie Ahern’s Fianna Fáil basket; they should put them in the basket of Unionism; they should stay with Unionism today and give it the endorsement it requires.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I was absorbed in the Reverend’s young son’s rhetoric.
I want to address Section 5 of the report which deals with the setting up of the Civic Forum. SinnFéin subscribes to and supports the setting up of the Civic Forum. We have made constructive and positive inputs through our full and active engagement in the working party set up to bring forward proposals to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). Over the weeks of its deliberations Sinn Féin brought forward comprehensive proposals for the setting up of a Civic Forum. During those deliberations we flagged up a number of concerns such as representation, nomination bodies, remit — all the issues which have the potential to make the Civic Forum a truly representative body reflecting civic society.
We were concerned lest the Civic Forum become a performing poodle. We note that some of our concerns have been addressed in the final report. However, we are disappointed that this report today contains fundamental flaws and falls far short of producing a body that will address the democratic deficit and its effect on civic society that 50years of Unionist misrule and 30years of direct British misrule have given us.
SinnFéin believes that our proposals for the development of a Civic Forum would address the democratic deficit, complement the work of the Assembly, add to the quality of decision-making and be not only consultative but innovative as well. SinnFéin set out proposals which we hoped would impact on civic society by structuring the Civic Forum in such a way that it would provide the potential for establishing a new relationship between people and politicians — a bridge from the community to the Assembly.
In the working party we argued for quality time for the Civic Forum, more and wider consultation, equality of representation, the core principles of accessibility, transparency and accountability. We promoted and encouraged the concept that the Civic Forum, by embracing core democratic values, could become a dynamic body influencing and contributing to the process of real change.
Our proposal for setting up Comhdháil an Phobail, the people’s forum based on constituency panels connecting directly with local Assembly representatives, had the overall aim of providing an effective and expert structure to the Assembly on development, policy performance, legislation and administration. We argued and will continue to argue that such a structure would be preferable, in terms of democratic participation, to an exclusive and predetermined clutch of organisations designed to meet the needs of the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate) in meeting the needs of civic society. Constituency panels would also ensure an effective mechanism, not only for equality proofing and maximising representation, but also for providing a sound basis for debates, drawing upon the knowledge of those who are expert in any given area of discussion.
Some of our concerns have been addressed in the report, but there are still areas where we have serious misgivings. We argued in the sub-group for a further period of more extended consultation to address the concerns and the suspicions in the broader community that the Civic Forum would be nothing more than a body of the great and the good, already well represented in civic society — a sort of Trimble and Mallon fan club.
Despite these concerns Sinn Féin has struggled to uphold the principles which underpin the agreement and to devise mechanisms for developing the Civic Forum which are consistent with the core principles of equality, accessibility, transparency and accountability. It is for those who have participated in the formulation and endorsing of the report to explain, not only to the Assembly but also to the pro-agreement public, how precisely this report can overcome the inherent and fundamental flaw which gives ultimate control of selection, remit and representation of the Civic Forum to the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate).
No matter what the recommendations of the sub-group, the invitation to the umbrella groups, the process of selecting the voluntary community sector, the public advertisement, appointments, and so on, at the end of it all the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) — not the Assembly — will hand-pick 60individuals. This will be a double-edged sword for them. In terms of equality proofing the buck stops with the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). Despite the fact that it allows for review after a year in terms of the Civic Forum delivering what everyone expects of it — participative democracy — this report falls far short of such expectations.

Lord Alderdice: I know that we are getting well on in the day, but I would appeal to Members to give this Member the same good hearing that has been given to most other Members. If Members wish to have conversations they should slip out for a minute or two to do so.

Ms Mary Nelis: In this report, democratic principles are secondary to the opinion of the First Minister (Designate) who, it seems, never wanted a Civic Forum. When it was written into the agreement the First Minister (Designate) hoped that his inactivity and hostile approach to it would make it disappear — like other issues in the agreement which he did not like, but signed up to. But it did not. Indeed, the UUP’s submission contained in the synopsis to the working party says
"keen on the business community being represented, but conscious that, however worthy, bodies such as the Institute of Directors do not fully represent the business community. Keen on Chambers of Commerce and Chambers of Trade as having a role."
Could this be crony corporatism? Not exactly a recipe for democratic participation, nor does it reflect equality, which is to become the responsibility of the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate).
The DUP, the party that said "No" and continues to say "No", refused to participate in the working party. It was scared that it might learn something about democracy, which it keeps shouting about here. It is called political cowardliness.
A Chathaoirligh, I raised my party’s concerns during working party meetings that the submissions made to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) represented a narrow cross-section of civic society. I raised the issues of quangos, which are actually given the authority to nominate members to the Forum. I asked time and time again for consultation to be extended to incorporate the opinions and ideas on the Civic Forum of marginalised and excluded communities.
This report does not accommodate such communities, unless the additional six representatives which the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) have slipped in, outside the recommendations of the sub-group, will be drawn from those excluded by the report — for example, ex-prisoners, travellers, grass-roots community economic organisations, human rights groups and victims of state violence.
It is more likely that the additional 10% of the Forum, the magnificent six appointed by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), will be the friends of friends — the great and the good; a Civic Forum quango in what is supposed to be a consultative body.
Nevertheless, the Civic Forum will be set up, and we in SinnFéin will give it our critical support. It will be up to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to demonstrate that the Civic Forum will be explicitly, directly and systematically equality-proofed. SinnFéin will continue to press for a Civic Forum which will be truly democratic and inclusive.
I would like to end with the words of the great poet RobertFrost:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep."
This report has miles to go.
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Chomhairle.

Mr Alban Maginness: Recently I received a card which showed the monument erected at Messines to commemorate the fallen Irish soldiers of the First World War. The interesting thing about those soldiers was that irrespective of whether they came from North or South, or whether they were Catholic or Protestant, and although they fought in the one army, they fought for different political objectives and from two different political perspectives. A further interesting thing about the card was the name of the group that designed this monument, and I know that the Member for North Down, SirJohnGorman, was actively involved in that design.
It was called the Journey of Reconciliation Trust, and it struck me today that we are also on a journey of reconciliation. Without that key goal in mind, the Assembly will fail because it exists, not for our entertainment or for political point scoring, but for the creation of genuine reconciliation in this society. The report is an attempt to create a structure and a network in which reconciliation can take place. We have constructed an Executive that has built into it power-sharing between the two communities and among all the Assembly’s political parties.
We have a unique opportunity to develop that theme of reconciliation. Today is a good day for reconciliation because the report provides a vehicle for that. I note the sneers from DUP Members when I mention reconciliation. I am used to that and to the negativity of the DUP. Its corner of the Chamber should be called "No corner" because the DUP represents the biggest negative in our politics. Its attitude to the report entirely reflects its negativity. Its Members are the no-men. They are going nowhere and they live in a political nowhere land.
The speeches by MrPaisleyJnr and PeterRobinson reminded me of a drowning man clinging to the political wreckage of failure and abstentionism that represents the DUP. The Members who support the report represent hope and reconciliation for this community —

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Member give way? [Interruption]

Mr Alban Maginness: Listen to them. They illustrate the negativity that I and others, including DavidErvine, have highlighted. The debate ended — [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order. MrMaginness may be able to deal with these interruptions, but they are disturbing for everyone else. Are you prepared to take the intervention, MrMaginness?

Mr Alban Maginness: No. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order. The Member has made it clear that he is not taking the interventions. I therefore ask Members to let him proceed.

Mr Alban Maginness: The debate ended around 2.30pm after DavidErvine’s —

Mr Gregory Campbell: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. Is it in order for AlbanMaginness to lambast Members in this corner for being negative? When I was speaking I gave way to him, and he adamantly refuses to give way to anyone on this side.

Lord Alderdice: As you know, it is in order for a Member not to give way.

Mr Jim Wells: Mr Maginness will recall that I gave way to him during my previous speech. The Member speaks about negative approaches. Does he remember that it was his party which boycotted the Assembly from 1982 to 1986? It also boycotted the Forum, the Police Authority and Stormont in 1969. Which is the negative party in the House?

Mr Alban Maginness: I am talking about a situation where we all have an opportunity to rebuild this community. The DUP is not taking that opportunity because it is so negative in its attitude to everything at present. And the problem for some people is that they made a mistake about a year or 18 months ago when they refused to go back into the negotiations. Now they are left in a situation in which we have an agreement which has the support, not just of the political parties that signed it, but of the vast majority of people in NorthernIreland, and, indeed, in the whole of Ireland. Their boycott, negativity and abstentionism have brought them into the cul-de-sac that DavidErvine has rightly described them as being in, and they cannot get out of it without losing face. But if they had had a leadership that was brave enough and imaginative, they would have got out of it long before now.
The people who are giving leadership in the community are SeamusMallon and DavidTrimble. Through today’s report they have provided — [Interruption]
I am not surprised at this layabout attitude coming from those Benches. The problem with them is that they have narrow minds, and worse than that, they have withered hearts. They have neither the bigness nor the generosity to get on with rebuilding the community and trying to repair its divisions and wounds.
Today we have a report that provides a way forward. It creates institutions of government that are innovative and imaginative. The Department of Social Development, for example, will do much to help a community that suffers from multiple deprivation. The creation of a Department for Regional Development will do likewise, in terms of developing our resources in the community and providing a new infrastructure as we approach the new millennium.
In addition, we will have a Department which will ally Higher Education with Training and Employment. That is innovative and a major step forward. We will also have a Department of Enterprise, Trade and Development that will create a new basis for industry and commerce in the community. And that is what we need because the public sector here, which employs 40% of the total workforce, is too big. By developing an alternative enterprise-based economy and culture here we can do much to develop our human resources and physical and natural resources.
That is why this is a good day for the people of NorthernIreland. Members who sneer at this report have nothing at all to put in its place. This report provides us with a common way forward. It provides the basis for sufficient trust in the community, and all the major political parties here who are dedicated to rebuilding the community can help to build on that together.
Many Members have talked about time running out, about there being little hope and about people despairing. Between little hope and despair there lies an ocean of opportunity. We have that ocean of opportunity. Let us now embark on that journey of reconciliation, through that ocean of opportunity, and provide for our children in the years to come.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I will first pick up on a comment which the Deputy First Minister (Designate) made this morning. I was quite mystified when he referred to the fact that there would be no decommissioning outside of the agreement. I wonder if the thought ever crossed his mind that a straightforward solution would be simply to do the proper and honourable thing: renounce terrorism as a means of obtaining a political objective, dismantle the war machine and disband the terrorist organisations and decommission all the weaponry. Sometimes we are guilty of overlooking the obvious, but I would have thought that that was a fairly obvious solution to the problem.
Comment was also made today in relation to democracy and the core democratic values that we all should be embracing. I remind Members that the graves of the murdered cry out this evening for justice and for equality. No doubt this evening the families of the victims marvel at the hypocrisy of some Members’ contributions today.
As elected public representatives, we have a duty to provide stable and credible government for the citizens of NorthernIreland, and the establishment of a local accountable Assembly is an objective that all democrats can identify with. And the machinery for achieving that consists of free and fair elections. The problem is that, as a result of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent legislation, which the DUP opposed, we have a mongrel form of Administration. This hybrid system of government was of course devised to placate Republican terrorists and other terrorists who want to have their cake and eat it.
To put it another way, those wedded to terrorism succeeded in the talks process in duping the other negotiators by pretending to follow the democratic path, yet they had no intention of abandoning the terror tactic. Hence, today we have a report brought about by an agreement, the aim of which is to accommodate unrepentant terrorists and which is designed to ensnare Unionism in a web of Irish Nationalism, leading eventually to a united Ireland.
The whole exercise of establishing local accountable democracy, as envisaged in this report, is seriously flawed, operating, as it has to, on the basis of the Belfast Agreement. And it lacks democratic credibility while representatives of terror remain in the Chamber of democracy.
At the weekend I heard Members express fears about a retreat from the agreement and its possible consequences. But I have never heard the same passionate calls for a retreat from terrorism, punishment beatings, the tools of terrorism, or the threat of terrorism. Democracy cannot afford to be polluted by terrorism or the threat of terrorism which this report contains. Those who believe in the purely democratic process have great difficulty with the diluted system incorporating pretend democrats and unrepentant terrorists.
Another element of the Belfast Agreement is the establishment of the consultative Civic Forum. This is another deviation from true democracy. The system of appointees and the concept of quangos are contrary to proper accountable democracy. There is no substitute for democratically elected public representatives. The Belfast Agreement, however reprehensible it is, makes provision for such a Civic Forum, and, with all its intrinsic weaknesses, that will become a reality.
It must also be said that, as far as consultation with groups and individuals is concerned, the facility is normally afforded to Government committees to access information and expertise by meeting such delegations as and when required.
I must also state that no Member has a monopoly on wisdom, knowledge or ideas. There are valuable contributions to be made by those outside this Chamber from all walks of life.
The Civic Forum, under the Belfast Agreement, is a fait accompli. It is essential, in the interests of fairness, equity and justice, that representation on such a body should reflect the community as much as possible, but it is questionable whether such fair representation can be achieved under these proposals.
First, according to the proposals before us, the health sector, which is vital in NorthernIreland, is not to be represented. As my Colleague GregoryCampbell pointed out, there will be no representation for local government either. Secondly, nominations by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) are a further manifestation of the undemocratic nature of the proposed forum. Thirdly, the appointment of the chairperson to the Civic Forum by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) is further evidence of the manipulation and the contrived democratic process that we have to experience. Fourthly, the victims of terrorism are clearly going to be under-represented in the Civic Forum and will once again find themselves victimised and discriminated against.
Hence, we will have, under these proposals, a defective and deficient Civic Forum, a conclusion that is inevitable for all true democrats, especially given the other elements of the report and particularly the absence of any reference to decommissioning or dismantling of the Irish Republican war machine.
I appeal to my Colleagues in all shades of Unionism to vote against this report. This report, if adopted, will be damaging not only to the Unionist position but to the Union itself, and I will be voting against it.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, A Chathaoirligh.
Cuirim "fáilte cháilithe" roimh an tuairisc seo. Is é brí mo chuid cainte go gcaithfear leanstan ar aghaidh ar an toirt — gan mhoill — leis na forais atá luaite sa Chomh Aontú.
Ar chlúdach an ChomhAontaithe deirt sé "Baineann an doiciméad seo le do thodhchaí. Léigh go cúramach é, le do thoil. Is é do chinneadh féin é." Thug 85% de mhuintir na h-Éireann a dtacaíocht don ChomhAontú sin.
Ritheann sé liom ó am go h-am nár léigh roinnt Teachtái Tionóil an ComhAontú fiú féin. Ní thuigeann siad aon chuid den mhéid atá le rá aige faoi dhímhíleatú agus faoin ghéarghá leis an chéad chéim eile a ghlacadh sa phróiséas seo — níor mhaith leo é a thuigbheáil, a ba chóra a rá.
This week will be crucial for the peace process. We will be voting on the report to set up the 10Assembly Departments and the all-Ireland bodies, which are long-awaited and overdue. There should be no further delay in establishing the shadow Executive and the all-Ireland Ministerial Council in preparation for the devolution of power at the beginning of next month. Towards that end, SinnFéin will give its support, qualified though that may be, to the report from The First Minister (Designate)/An Chéad Aire and The Deputy First Minister (Designate)/An Leas-Aire.
I look forward to working closely with those in the Culture, Arts and Leisure Department and to ensuring that the provisions of the agreement with respect to Irish language and culture are developed to their full in the spirit of mutual respect and cultural diversity. Similarly, I look forward to the establishment of the North/South implementation body with the principal function of promoting the Irish language.
Go n-éirí go geal leis na h-iarrachtaí seo, agus guidhim rath agus bláth orthu.
In relation to the system for nominating Members to the Civic Forum, I hope that victims of British state violence will be given a strong voice, because this category of victim has been denied a voice for too long. There must be an equivalency of victim status, an equality of grief, and an equality of memory. There must be no hierarchy of victims, no distinctions drawn between those, on whatever side, who have died because of this conflict.
I expect that when it comes to nominating sporting appointees to the Civic Forum the Gaelic Athletic Association, the largest sporting organisation in this country, will be given due recognition for its contribution and importance in every county the length and breadth of this island, and for its contribution to society generally. If the Sports Council does not see fit to nominate someone from a Gaelic athletic background then I hope that the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) will nominate such an appointee.
We should be getting on with our work. Anxious communities are waiting with bated breath for a more considerate, more local, more relevant and understanding policy approach to many issues. This can be done only by politicians who come from this country and not from England, Scotland or Wales.
In relation to hospitals, the Health Service, rural schools and, as we approach the new millennium, the issue of connecting rural homes to a water supply, I look forward to working with the Department for Regional Development. Those are crucial issues on which English, Scottish and Welsh Ministers have never done a proper job. Let us do a proper job on those matters because we understand our own country best. Let us remember that we have to give political and institutional effect to what the people have said. Eighty-five per cent of the people of this country have voted and endorsed the GoodFriday Agreement.
Go raibh maith agat.

Lord Alderdice: The sitting is now suspended. We will resume —[Interruption]

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Will you deal tomorrow with an issue under section 10(2) of the Standing Orders on the conduct of Members in the Chamber? It was touched upon earlier, but I should like to return to it tomorrow at your earliest convenience and to ask whether you think that it is proper for a Member to bring into the building, and into the Chamber, a component part of an explosive device. If it is acceptable and if you think it appropriate, will you refer the matter to the shadow Commission to consider how Members are searched on entering the building? It is a matter for grave concern that any Member could bring into the building and into the Chamber part of an explosive device.
This is not a matter to be dealt with lightly. I said at a meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer that I thought that it might be necessary for all Members on entering this building to be searched if a breach of security took place. I believe that this matter should be returned to at some stage in the future, and I would welcome your views on it.

Lord Alderdice: I would like to respond to that point of order, as it may obviate the need to respond to others. If it does not, I will take the other points of order in turn.
As far as the matter raised by MrCWilson is concerned, I have asked for, and have already received, a preliminary report, which I will read after the suspension of today’s sitting. It is likely that I will wish to return to this matter tomorrow. Does that answer all the points of order?

Mr Barry McElduff: May I ask that the firearms held by other Members be left outside the building?

Lord Alderdice: I am surprised to find that you are unaware that since the first sitting of the Assembly, there has been an armoury at the entrance to the building, and that all those who —

Mr Barry McElduff: That means the Members opposite — all the Unionist Members’ weapons.

Lord Alderdice: The Member may wish to be cautious about the comments he is making. As regards this particular matter, all those who work in this building, including civil servants who were not Assembly staff but who were in the building in the early days of the Assembly’s life, were asked to place any weapons they held in the armoury. Also, anyone who is not a Member of the Assembly — and that has included some very senior people — must submit themselves to an examination on the way in. This is not the case for Members, and the point that the Member for Strangford is making is that we should consider whether this should also apply to Members. Everyone else has to go through the security devices.
I emphasise that Members bringing firearms into the building are requested, on their honour, to place these in the armoury — a request which has been set out in various documents. Members can then pick up their firearms when they leave the building. I am a little disappointed to see that this is not common knowledge, as it has been pointed out on a number of occasions before.
I appeal to Members to observe this. If there is a general feeling among Members that they should not be excluded from the search procedures, this should be communicated either to party Whips or to members of the Commission. The matter will then be raised at a subsequent meeting of the relevant bodies.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order. In previous Assemblies, the procedure you have outlined was operated very successfully, but I feel that it should be put on record that if a person brings an unlicensed weapon into the building, that will be a different matter. In the past, each Member had to produce his certificate, and that should be the rule today, especially as the Government are prepared to allow people to carry unlicensed weapons.

Lord Alderdice: The regulations are there. To my knowledge, they have been used in the case of a small number of Members.
I will return to the other matter tomorrow.
The sitting was suspended at 5.59 pm